Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 24

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Please block

  Resolved.

203.24.9.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - For vandalism. See contribs for more info. MathCool10 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use WP:VIP for this... Goblin 08:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Lukić

  Resolved.

REASON:This user want to be member of autopatrolled group.--AleksA ツ 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't have an autopatrolled user group here. Your edits will remain unpatrolled until an admin has looked over them. This is the same for all non-admins. Goblin 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A rollback group, can you give me them user authority?--AleksA ツ 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RFR. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that you just got unblocked, I don't think you're likely to have it granted. Give it a bit more time. EVula // talk // 20:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban on Snow funn at tall

  Resolved.

See indef block proposal above – just got indeffed for extremely abusive socking (here, have a little perusal through his sock category). Perhaps he's RMHED? I don't even know if this needs to be formal – let's just make it so, and let him know that simple.wikipedia really doesn't want him around. --Dylan620 (Sign this plz) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, looks like I was wrong... Kennedy (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to comment on the proposal? It's been 14.5 hours. --Dylan620 (Sign this plz) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is already blocked. There isn't anything to comment on. Also to note, things move much more slowly on here than on en, so 14.5 hours isn't very long. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that he's blocked, I was just proposing to turn the block into a ban. --Dylan620 (Sign this plz) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinate block is a ban for all intents an purpose. -Djsasso (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Lukic's Behavior

At EhJJ's RFA, Aleksa Lukic put out a controversial vote. When EhJJ tried to respond, Aleksa Lukic called him a troll. Lukic has already personally attacked EhJJ, but EhJJ accepted his apology. Now that this is the second time, and Aleksa Lukic has already been blocked, what should be done? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 15:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lie a just tell him to don't turn thematics of debate. Nothing personally --AleksA ツ 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an extremely immature editor. What ought to be done is that Aleksa starts acting like an adult, but that's not really down to anyone but him/her. Majorly talk 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insult

one out all out buddy - want a clown to come round your house and kill you? that is this user wrote to me after I have warned him to don't do war of changes and in article Clown he has also write don't adequate informations. Special:RecentChanges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksa Lukic (talk • contribs)

This is not an insult, and you are edit warring. Please stop, or you will be blocked. Majorly talk 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; twice Aleksa Lukic reverted the change (which is unsourced, not relevant, controversial, and boarderline vandalism), and once he restored content removed for no reason (which was certainly vandalism). Though this is not a matter for ANI, Platter 'o ham seems clearly in the wrong ShakingSpirittalk 16:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree that it was an insult? It was a question, not a statement. EVula // talk // 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Majorly's dismissal of the issue with an accusation of edit waring - it seems Aleksa Lukic has, rightly or wrongly, a reputation, and wanted to give my opinion as a neutral observer. Apologies for not being clearer. ShakingSpirittalk 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. That makes much more sense. :) EVula // talk // 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a problem here. EVula // talk // 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...now, that said, Platter o' ham's comment on Aleksa's talk page[1] is certainly uncalled for. EVula // talk // 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I'm seeing problems with both users personally. Majorly talk 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shaking Spirit is an interesting one - returning after 3 years of inactivity to warn me about my civility. As regards the clown section, it is a 'clowns in popular culture' at best. I removed the rest of the section because the other clowns seemed no more notable than Gacy. I'm sorry if my message to Lukic came across as harsh rather than funny - I didn't mean to threaten him Platter 'o ham (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Clowns in Popular Culture' is the majority of the article; I disagree with your axing over half the article after your contribution was reverted, just to prove your point. ShakingSpirittalk 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be the majority of the article, that doesn't make it good... Platter 'o ham (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you come back, ShakingSpirit? It does seem a little odd, frankly. But I've seen weirder things. Like, here, a couple of what are essentially brand new editors arguing on AN. Majorly talk 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SS has been plenty active on enwiki. If you look at his contribs here, you'll see he hopped over and reverted and warned someone. I'd imagine he spilled onto this situation by it being at the top of the RecentChanges page (which is how I noticed it before it came here). EVula // talk // 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because I was being talked about. I've added some sources for what I wrote about clowns. For someone who's known as The Killer Clown, I think Gacy has a good chance of fitting into the Clowns in Popular Culture section. So now it's Sourced, Relevant, Controvercial perhaps ... but borderline vandalism? That's not really my style... Platter 'o ham (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EVula's dead-on about how I got here :) Still it seems that the issue initially raised has been resolved, Platter 'o ham has apologized for his perhaps poor choice of words, and although I still have my grievances over the article change itself, I'll take that to the appropriate place. ShakingSpirittalk 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I didn't read it right, but I'm confused, what's happening?--  † CM16  18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Takes a wikignome to understand how a wikignome operates, apparently. ;) EVula // talk // 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tharnton345 ban evasion

  Resolved.

See Special:Contributions/78.148.102.206; this is how I'm sure. Could we perhaps get Eptalon, Majorly, or The Rambling Man over here to make sure? --Dylan620 Review me 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please request on the appropriate page next time; besides, if it was checked and confirmed on enwiki, what would be the point here? And it was blocked as a sock of a different username... Majorly talk 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have requested on the appropriate page, but I don't know where that is. --Dylan620 Review me 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RfCU. EhJJTALK 16:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sad thing was that if he didn't sock he was probably going to have his ban lited in a year....doubt that will happen now. Guess he is impatient. A ear must seem like forever for someone so young. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please block the IP, and reset the ban on Tharnton for another year? --Dylan620 Review me 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He stopped editing, its not that big a deal. Relax. -Djsasso (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation account

  Resolved.

Please block User:Susan Boyle. The account is impersonating a living person. Thanks Soup Dish (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Chenzw  Talk  09:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's not the real Susan Boyle? :p –Juliancolton | Talk 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"She" put "its me, off Britains Got Talent". I doubt she would describe herself as 'that woman off that TV show'. To be honest thats all I'm basing this on, I didn't read "her" contribs. If Susan Boyle wants to provide proof that this account is hers, I will unblock. But its very very unlikely. :P Kennedy (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the user's deleted contributions for evidence that this is not the real person. Chenzw  Talk  06:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where a program like w:WP:UAA would come in handy...

  Resolved.

...see Special:Contributions/Charlotteswebmedia. Cheers, Dylan620 Review me 22:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider working on some articles? UAA is one of the worst "report" pages on enwiki. If it's a blatant vandal, report to VIP. If not, bring it here or Simple talk to discuss it. Or... try politely asking the user to change their username. But the first suggestion is my most strongest to you... and that applies to everywhere. Majorly talk 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are a small enough community that pages like that are not necessary, heck VIP is barely necessary because admins tend to catch vandalism before it gets to VIP. -Djsasso (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reset password

  Resolved.

Is it possible to reset the password for User:MarsRover? That is me but I forgot the password and cannot finish the Unified Login. Thanks --Mars (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make a usurp request at Wikipedia:Changing username unless you have a way to proove its you. -Djsasso (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try the "email new password" button on the login page. Chenzw  Talk  06:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I just assumed they didn't have their email address put in... -Djsasso (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct assuption. Thanks for the link above. --Mars (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianMan16 indef block

  Resolved.

Bit sudden I feel. I've taken this to AN in a frail attempt to get some consensus, not to cause drama (although it's probably inevitable). Go ahead, discurse.  GARDEN  21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread above that can be used. Majorly talk 21:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay then.  GARDEN  21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChristianMan16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.
Result: It appears that the community has lost their patience for the involved user. User:ChristianMan16 will be community banned indefinitely. After 6 months, however, he is free to request for an unban on his talk page (subject to consensus). He is urged to reflect upon his actions in this period of time. Chenzw  Talk  07:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As many of you might have noticed, ChristianMan16 (talk · contribs)'s behavior has become increasingly troubling as of late. I'll try to keep this post short, but here are a couple examples: widespread POV-pushing, demonstrated here and here, which has led to disruption such as edit warring; incivility and inappropriate conduct: [2]; long, checkered history, both here and at enwiki. At the moment, his problematic behavior is, in my opinion, detrimental to the encyclopedia, and I'd like to propose that some sort of action be taken, whether it be editing restrictions or simply a formal warning. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some believe he is an asset to this community for his article work. So, I'd be in support of a mainspace restriction ("topic ban"). He'd be allowed to edit the article space, talk pages, and user talk pages (only as necessary to building articles). He would not be allowed to edit Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk spaces except for things like blatant vandal reports to VIP. Thoughts? Either way (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds OK to me, though I'm not sure what this "asset" is regarding article work. Majorly talk 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think an editing restriction per Either way's suggestion would be beneficial. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me either, personally, but some believe there is merit and validity to his work, so perhaps if we restrict him to just these spaces, we can see exactly how much of an asset that editing is. Without the other things to get to the way, it'd be interesting to see how the article edits stand out. Either way (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd rather take a wikibreak to get my head on straight than any other action be taken. Listen, IMO which y'all can agree or disagree with, this wiki is more uptight than it used to be and it's getting more stressful which is why I came here after getting banned, it was less stressful and I seemed to keep a cooler head, I'll admit I have a short temper. But lately my just showing my opinion has been twisted into POV pushing or incivility. this is who I am and I'm not going to hide it for anybody. I ahve a conservative and I speak what I see as the truth. Now I do try to keep it from getting out of hand and I do not push it on other pepole, mainly cause I'm not a dictator. I encourage free speech, I encourage free-will, I encourage free thought. and to me it seems y'all are trying to take that away from me here, and make me a monotoned robot. This wiki has lost it's fun. I do with all due respect think y'all need to lighten up, it's not like we're Encyclopedia Britanica or what have ya. We're Wikipedia, we're supposed to have fun doing this. I have to ask why no action was ever taken from the community when Soup personally attacked me? I feel there is a double standard somewhere. Remember I am A human being I have feelings and make mistakes. I also have bipolar disorder so I can't take the name calling or punishment some can and still keep a cool head. I'm getting my bipolar disorder under control as quickly as I can. You guys just have to be patient. That's all I have to say for now.--  † CM16  03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it's not about having fun, it's about building a reliable and comprehensive encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do it to have fun, but be reliable.--  † CM16  03:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then perhaps Wikipedia isn't right for you? –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it is and you set the bar higher for me than you do others cause of my enwp history. And BTW, when I say "it's fun" I mean I enjoy this or I wouldn't keep coming back or neither would you. Now, I'm gonna let this go the way it wants, and only reply if I need to.--  † CM16  04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I respect your opinion and intentions. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have publically insisted this before: Wikipedia should be fun. We all enjoy editing here. Its not a job, we decide ourselves whether or not to edit. The moment I stop enjoying editing here, then I'm leaving. However, the fun can only go so far before it becomes annoying and useless. This is a prime example of taking fun too far, and harms the wikipedia. I don't know whether or not I'd support a block/ban whatever. I'd like to see a formal proposal before I decide. Kennedy (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have one thing to say. You stated "I ahve a conservative and I speak what I see as the truth. Now I do try to keep it from getting out of hand and I do not push it on other pepole" - Personally, I disagree. I think you do push your views on other people. Your username advertises your beliefs. I bet you would have something to say if I changed my name to AethistMan19? You even mentioned in your attempt to explain you don't push your own view that you are a conservative. You have left various template "happy easter" messages saying "[Jesus] is alive" etc... You have a "pro-life" banner on your page, which means you oppose abortion. There is at least four bible quotes on your userpage. I'm astounded to see a userbox on your page saying "This user is does not have an American Bias, it can just seem that way cause he's never been out of Florida.". You have two userboxes explaining your faith, one saying "This user believes in God's promise with Noah." And also one that says "This user believes that Marriage should be between one Man and one Woman" opposing same-sex marriage. Would you still say that you don't push your views on other people? Kennedy (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think that, just because you take it that way doesn't mean that's my intention nor what it is. And for me to take down those items on my userpage, which I might add follows en's Userpage policy which is basically a more complicated version of ours (source: Alison), would be censoring my self. I just have it there, cause it's what I believe, and no I don't push it on others. Those easter messages I was very careful on who I handed it out to, I handed one out to AE who I know i a fellow Christian and one to Yot cause he handed me one first. I don't see the problem with that.--  † CM16  19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Please note, that this is my personal opinion, you are free to agree with it, and you may also disagree. I have not watched CM16's edits closely, as there is no reason to. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, CM16's chose to be what is called conservative in the United States. This possibly includes being against abortion. Please note that aside from th purely indoctrination-based POV, there may well be reasons to be against abortion; depending on when and how it is performed, abortions may be a danger to the health of the mother, for example. It may also be better to use various forms of birth control (that way, no baby is made, and consequently does not need to be aborted), or to have the opinion that unwanted children should be given up for adoption, after they are born. Same thing with evolution. There are many good indicators to say that evolution is probably a reality, yet there are people out there who want to change the concept, to either include some form of guidance (God guides/influences evolution) or to say that evolution is totally against their belief/scriptures. When I look at an editor on this Wikipedia, I judge them by what they contribute, not by what they believe. An editor does not improve by belonging to a given religion, or by having a certain set of beliefs. A good editor tries to make this Wikipedia better. This includes in the very least to accept that there may be people who believe different things, and that there may be a different angle from which the information can be presented/the story can be told. People who write here should be motivated, this wiki does not have enough editors. Part of the motivation is to create an environment that allows user to easily add articles, or to correct facts in articles that are wrong. Simply pointing to an editor and saying Look that one has expressed an opinion will not be good for such an environment. Rather it will be called witch hunt. If some editors think they do not get along with each other, let them sort it out themselves; it is not in the responsibility of the people who edit the Wiki. And be sure to get acquainted with duck-testing if you think this should be pursued further. Thank you for reading. And just for your information: My views on religion are pretty agnostic. --Eptalon (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-- reset) Just thought i'd give my £0.02 on this. I've been watching CM16 for a while, and have mentioned things to other editors about editing habits etc. While there are (possibly) questionable blips I don't think that at this stage there is any need for any form of topic ban etc. Furthermore, I see no "final warning" to CM about his work. Yes, he is blocked at en, but so what? He has proven to be (largely) useful and constructive here, so why "punish" him because of it? Now, I am an out-and-out atheist when it comes to religion, but I respect CMs views and see no reason that we should "punish" him because of them - nor do we have any right to do so. Yes, he may be a bit open and (slightly) POV pushy about it, and the onus is on him to think before he speaks and possibly tone down what could be seen by some as a crusade. CM: You commented that you could take a wikibreak. I'd suggest that a few days/weeks may well be a good idea, just to let the atmosphere clear a little. When you return, try to stay away from areas that have been quite heated for you, not necessarily permanantly, but definitely for a few weeks/months. You say you're not a good content creator, but I am sure with a bit of determination and hard work you could get yourself a GA or VGA, with the help from other editors. I'd certainly be willing to help. Try to become active in areas that are largely neglected - why not head over to WP:DYK, WP:PVGA or WP:PGA and look over the articles that are suggested there, giving comments if needed? Perhaps help to clerk DYK, by reviewing hooks and then keeping the template updated. Perhaps head "behind the scenes" and work on things that are often neglected by others, such as categorisation, stub sorting etc. If you want any help, just drop me a line, on or off wiki, and i'll be happy to help you out. To finish, I just want to re-iterate one point (and this actually applies to every editor on the wiki): before you save an edit, check it and think; if someone said that to you, would you be offended? Remember there is a real person on the other end of the screen, and they could easily be hurt by what you say. It's hard to detect emotions etc in text, so try to avoid sarcasm etc. Furthermore, remember that other people may not share the same views with you. Try not to push them upon anyone else, and respect other people's opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own, and no-one has the right to alter those views. To be concise, just think before saving. Regards, Goblin 11:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia has no free speech. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 11:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would miss CM16 - his comments can annoy me and I'm sure we would not agree about many things, but his contributions are part of the simple wiki community, and I enjoy being a part of this community --59.101.195.135 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry - I was logged off, I didn't mean to make an anonymous comment.Peterdownunder (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose the proposal. While I don't believe CM16 should have been allowed to edit Simple after his EN ban, to punt him out or restrict him now would serve no real purpose. A less "in your face" userpage would be nice and without userboxes than border, in the eyes of some if not myself, on homophobic Soup Dish (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support either a restriction to article space or a formal warning. We keep saying how good an editor he is here etc etc, how he has improved from how he was at en.wiki. But I honesly don't know that he has other that he doesn't sockpuppet anymore, which could be only because he isn't banned here so he doesn't need to. -Djsasso (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dj, being here certainly makes it easier not to sock, but the main reason I don't sock anymore cause it hurt my chances of an unban on enWP.--  † CM16  19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not because socking is wrong and breaks policy? But because if you do it it reflects poorly on you? Interesting view point. Either way (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought people were smart enough to get that out of common sense, boy, I guess I was wrong.--  † CM16  00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now CM take this opinion for what it is or not...and learn from it, but I think this is part of the problem. Instead of coming out and saying no I don't do it because I know its wrong now and being straight forward, you made a comment on how it affects you personally if you do it. What I am getting at by saying this is that I don't know that you think before you speak (type). I don't know if anyone can teach you how to do that or not, but I really think you need to find a way to use that internal mute button or edit button. Because its comments like this that damage your reputation in the here and now, not past deeds. -Djsasso (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right.--  † CM16  01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support a restriction or a ban. His responses here suggest little knowledge of the problem, which in itself is a problem. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I'm not a fan of people who create drama, I don't see what CM16 has blatantly done wrong. Some say he's POV pushing ("he puts his favorite red linked-articles in RC", etc.), but I don't see how what he's done has harmed the encyclopedia. He has been a positive to the encyclopedia for a while, and I see no reason why we should prevent this. TheAE talk 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion In order to get around banning or limiting CM16's editing abilities, why not get rid of the things that are overly objectionable? I would suggest asking CM16 to rename his account to remove POV, and then deleting his user page and salting it so it can't be recreated. Thoughts? Soup Dish (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salting the userpage is a bit much for me, but I really cannot stand his POV outlook, which often seeps into articles so a rename is a good idea. Majorly talk 14:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No cavassing Majorlee Andre Robinson (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry and no offense but I'm not renaming my account, for the sole reason or main reason I should say that it would mess up my SUL (unified log-in).--  † CM16 
Not that I am saying you should change it, but you have 3 wikis on which you have any significant edits, one of which you are banned on. Changing your name and then fixing your SUL to match your new name would take almost no effort at all. -Djsasso (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DJ, no disrespect intended but I went through hell to get my en account renamed so my SUL would be unanimous. I don't want to go through that again.--  † CM16  20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could easily create another account and disclose its a new account and stop editing with this one which would then make it not a sockpuppet...of course you would lose your edit count, but editing is not about edit count right? :P -Djsasso (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could but I'd rather not, edit count does seem to mean a lot to me.--  † CM16  08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). I have no opinion with regards to CM's behavior here, but note that this discussion is entirely the wrong place for a discussion of rules for userboxes or usernames. Such a policy should be discussed and/or developed separately of an individual's behavior to ensure that it is implemented in a fair and WP:NPOV manner (as an example, if CM's username is unacceptable, administrator The Flying Spaghetti Monster's username would presumably also be unacceptable as satire making fun of Christian beliefs). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea here is that we aren't trying to have an overriding policy, but handle things on a case by case basis which is what makes this the exact perfect place to do so. -Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that doing so in this case could (potentially) violate the core principle of WP:NPOV. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

ChristianMan16 (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked by Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) —MC8 (b · t) 21:41, Friday May 1 2009 (UTC)

Endorse 100% Kennedy (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an unblock for ChristianMan16. As far as I know, there has been no discussion on wiki saying that he should be banned. There are even opposes above. It's a serious thing. He has several thousand edits, has been here for nearly two years. I don't understand.Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the thread you just posted on ;)  GARDEN  21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems unfair. Why go from a clean block history to an indef block without consensus beforehand on a user that's been here for nearly two years? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's got no blocks before now, because until now, no admin has had the balls to block him. I'd have blocked him at least once, for example, here. He mainly creates AN or ST threads, that do nothing but waste valuable time, and I for one have no time for people like him. And the fact that Simple has let this be an issue for nearly 2 years..well...perhaps that explains the project closure requests... SteveTalk 23:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you recall awhile ago we instituted a one chance policy for those who have been banned elsewhere. I believe even you supported it. This was his one chance. -Djsasso (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't like bullying and I don't like ganging up on people. You need to show more evidence than that for an indef block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.46 (talk • contribs)
    Please sign in to !vote. IP blocked on English Wikipedia, traces to AU. —MC8 (b · t) 16:34, Saturday May 2 2009 (UTC)

Any english wp edits aren't me, and the one month block seems to have been a year ago anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.46 (talk • contribs)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. Please remember to type four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your comments, and please consider creating an account. —MC8 (b · t) 16:58, Saturday May 2 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

General Synopsis
Strong Support User:American Eagle
Support User:EhJJ
User:Yotcmdr
User:SimonKSK
User:210.87.17.46 (IP)
User:Eptalon
User:X!
User:Eager Pilot (NC)
User:EVula
Oppose User:Soup Dish
User:Bluegoblin7
User:PeterSymonds
User:Shappy
User:Djsasso
User:Eitherway
User:Kennedy
User:Steve Crossin
User:Juliancolton
Main Arguments
  • Indef is excessive, as CM16 has a clean blocklog
  • Owning wrestling articles
  • POV does not invade mainspace
  • No space for reform
  • Has had chance after chance
  • Could apply for a {{unblock}} in 6 months
Last updated 03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. I'll try to make this brief, as I want to create as little as drama as possible. I agree with others that something needs to be done, as the drama surrounding CM16 has been going on for awhile. The user was indef blocked at present, and I didn't oppose it (on-wiki, at least). I have not seen a single comment that says CM16's mainspace contributions aren't good. It is widely agreed upon that he has been disruptive and/or pushing POV on Simple Talk, user talk pages, RfAs, etc, but look at templates such as Template:WWEPPV (not the template, but the articles in it). None of these would've been created without this user's efforts. I talked to CM16 about this, and he agreed. I'm proposing a six month topic ban, where he cannot edit any pages outside the article space. This will restrict him from creating drama, POV pushing, being disruptive, etc., but will also keep articles (especially related to wrestling) updated and accurate. TheAE talk 04:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)no[reply]

Addendum: Permitted pages include all Articles, Article talk, WP:VIP (to report only), own user space.
Restricted pages include all other User pages, User talk pages, Templates, Template talk, Categories, Category talk, all Wikipedia: name space (ST, RfAs, RfDs and AN - unless directly about him), etc.
  • Strong Support – per nom. TheAE talk 04:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - response should be enough to prevent damage, but not excessive. All out ban is excessive if a restriction will be enough. EhJJTALK 04:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - Much better than not letting him on at all. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 07:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Without CM16 owning the pro-wrestling articles, someone without his unique version of the English language may be able to improve them. I'm also not too pleased about AE acting as CM16's cheerleader. Again. Let's not forget AE was once known as something like "America Needs Jesus". Majorly is about the most level-headed user on here, and if his patience has run out with CM16 (and it's worth noting Majorly does not accept the notion of CM16 being any use in the mainspace) I care not to differ Soup Dish (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: - Before I comment further, I would like to clarify if this whole thing will be re-discussed after the 6 month topic ban. It won't make much sense if all things go back to normal after that 6 months. Chenzw  Talk  08:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after the time is over, and he has stayed true to his ban, we can re-discuss it. Six months is a long time. TheAE talk 18:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think any ban would need to involve a ban of his userspace. There is a lot of 'junk' in there, in my opinion. —MC8 (b · t) 12:36, Saturday May 2 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is a possiblity. TheAE talk 18:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He has had chance after chance. I also think AE tries to shield this guy too much and makes me question his judgement. It makes me recall another banned user he tried to shield. -Djsasso (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Djsasso. I'm fed up with AE defending CM till the bitter end. This is the same user who once was called America needs Jesus. Can you see the link? I have to wonder, if CM16 wasn't a Christian, would AE still defend his behaviour so much? Majorly talk 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is weird is that AE's judgement is only openly questioned in such a situation (on AN). Why wasn't this question brought up earlier (on RfA) if possible? Please attempt to look at things from a different perspective before commenting. Perhaps AE has a genuine reason for his actions. Chenzw  Talk  15:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I know I didn't bring it up as his Rfa because at the time it seemed like a minor issue, but after the previous banned user he defended till the bitter end combined with his big time defense of CM no matter what he does wrong, it does bring up questions of judgement. Also he is rarely around anymore in discussion except when it involves these sorts of matters so its hard not to look at it from the view I am looking at it and perhaps majorly and soup dish are. -Djsasso (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not defending CM16 whatsoever. This proposal included nothing of me being "wikifriends" with his, or that he is a fellow-Christian. I noted only good mainspace contributions (particularly wrestling-related), and that we should consider a topic ban so drama will be stopped, but article writing/updating may continue. TheAE talk 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support With respect to American Eagle for having the courage to take a stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.46 (talk • contribs)
    Please sign in to !vote. IP blocked on English Wikipedia, traces to AU. —MC8 (b · t) 16:34, Saturday May 2 2009 (UTC)
    Any english wp edits aren't me, and the one month block seems to have been a year ago anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.17.46 (talk • contribs)

OK, I have interviewed CM16 on Google talk, and thought you people would like to know his thoughts. He:

  • Agrees that he may have warranted a block
  • Does not think he warranted an indef block
  • Thinks that a two week block would be reasonable, to escalate from there
  • Says that the one-chance-for-banned-en-users discussion did not include him
  • Would be happy to get his userpage down to 'just one bible verse'
  • Would try not to 'POV-push'
  • Would focus more on the articles
  • Will update and expand the wrestling articles, which he has been neglecting recently
  • Would stay away from WP:RfA's and WP:RfD's
  • Reluctantly agrees to a topic ban of all pages except mainspace, main talkspace, user talk when related to mainspace, and discussions about him
  • Would like, on any outcome, to have his email reactivated. —MC8 (b · t) 18:43, Saturday May 2 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, off-wiki discussions are rarely the best way to go but, that aside, blocks are preventative and not punitive, so CM16 either needs blocking for the good of the project or he does. If he does, surely it has to be indefinite? As it stands, nobody has refuted any of Majorly's points. Soup Dish (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soup dish: What do you mean off wiki discussions aren't any good? Do you mean MC8 asking CM16 on gtalk? MC8: Those points seem fair to me. He agrees to them, and if he breaches, he gets a ban. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of a Wiki is collaboration and things being done openly, off-wiki limits that. In any case, I've yet to see any proof of the "CM16 is useful" meme. Ignoring all of that, I suggest he should be banned for his own welfare. He seems a bit unhinged at the best of times, has extremist views yet gives his (first) name and a photograph on his userpage. The longer he continues here, the more real-world harm he does himself Soup Dish (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki discussion complements a wiki. Wikis are not the best medium for discussing things with users, it is more suited for articles. We hack the system by adding a series of colons before each comment, to emulate a forum. They work for quick collaboration, but for in-depth discussions, MediaWiki fails miserably. IRC and realtime discussions help in leaps and bounds. IRC can be logged, but the real-time nature means that things can get heated, something people do not wish to disclose. Supplement, not replace. Work with, but not alienate.—MC8 (b · t) 20:13, Saturday May 2 2009 (UTC)
Off wiki discussion generally makes things worse, as things can be done in cloak and dagger methods. Open discussion is the key and moving things off wiki harms that. -Djsasso (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, an interview off-wiki seems completely fine. TheAE talk 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just replying to the generalized statement MC8 made. Interviewing him on IRC could be fine I suppose, though I see no reason why he couldn't do it on his talk page where all can see his replies and his exact replies can be seen as opposed to someones interpretations of them since not everyone can use IRC . -Djsasso (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy to use IRC these days, with the advent of browser-based clients. —MC8 (b · t) 09:50, Sunday May 3 2009 (UTC)
I mean due to place of employment firewall restrictions etc. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be on Wikipedia in your place of employment anyway. Majorly talk 21:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of the point, if you are making decisions on IRC, not all people can be involved. -Djsasso (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but with a twist, he should be able to edit:
    • His talk page
    • Articles (without restrictions on topics)
    • The talk pages of the articles he edits (to be able to discuss changes)
    • Pages relating to the PGA/PVGA process, and the DYK process (if it survives)
    • Alternatively: the Admin noticeboard, or the talk page of one predetermined admin (to be able to raise issues, if needed)
I would also propose to limit the topic ban to be re-considered in 3 months time (that is: if he can keep to it for three months, we do not necessarily need to enforce it the other three months). --Eptalon (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that WP:VIP and the need for a 'minimalistic' user talk page (if we're going to let him edit his talk page, we want him to only edit the comments) —MC8 (b · t) 09:50, Sunday May 3 2009 (UTC)
I agree to eptalon's as well as the other one. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is a message from CM16. Well, my fellow editors, this is it, all I want to say is I too want what's best for the wiki and I believe strongly that for this wiki it includes me, and if you prefer, in a topic ban. Me and SimonKSK are the only two wrestling editors here and he's not here that often. The blocking of me and/or the deletion of those articles I believe would damage the wiki. Now, y'all do not care much for wrestling, but I know millions of people do, and I write them to satisfy them, and I enjoy that. One person suggested they go to a wrestling news side. But the problem there is it's just that a News site, not an encyclopedia of wrestling facts. Now, I'll admit I've done a few things wrong. And I fully intend to improve. All I need from you all is that chance. I know some of you might think I'm an evil little boy trying to hurt the wiki, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. That's my view and request of this. It's up to you. Help or hurt the wiki. TTYL.--CM16 I do agree - even though I'm not a wrestling fan - that it is important business in the USA, and the articles should exist. He is one of the only people that have the knowledge and will to do it. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proxying for a banned or blocked editor never looks good. Soup Dish (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we should have done was unblocked CM16 and allowed him to edit only here. He should be allowed to comment on his own ban, no? Soup Dish, let's not make this about "which side are you on". EhJJTALK 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A topic-banned editor can be more of a net-benefit to the project than one that is indefinitely blocked, and CM can always be re-blocked if drama happens again. EVula // talk // 03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. I hope that if the conclusion is "no consensus" on the debate of whether to indef ban or topic ban, the default would be a topic ban. If CM16 violates any of the conditions of his topic ban, he can always be indef banned quite easily; and in clean conscience, knowing we progressively increased his ban, rather than went from no blocks or warnings to indef ban in one move. EhJJTALK 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


IP Block Exemption

Following this announcement on the Wikimedia Technical Blog, the changes to Extension:TorBlock has been made live, with tighter restrictions. In order to counter this problem, all wikis now have the IP block exemption group enabled. It can be added and removed by administrators. If anyone needs it, they can request for the flag over here for now until a seperate page has been created. Chenzw  Talk  08:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianMan16 clarification sought

ChristianMan16 was indefinitely blocked. A proposal was then made to offer him an unblock with restrictions. That was opposed and the discussion closed as ChristianMan16 being blocked for six months. How is it possible for a block to be shortened (indef to six months) when the consensus was in favour of the initial six-month block? Soup Dish (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think let's drop it. We've had enough of debating it in the first place, don't create more drama by challenging Chenzw's decision. Nothing good will come from this discussion. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 08:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because consensus was in favour of the six-month block, thus it was shortened. Would you like to clarify? Chenzw  Talk  08:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How was consensus if favour of a six-month block? The proposal was to lift the indef block and allow CM16 back with limited editing privileges or keep the indef block. This is like offering somebody a burger or a hotdog and them ending up with a plate of pineapple chunks! Soup Dish (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocking and starting a discussion, and then adapting the ban based on the arguments given/decision made is probably pretty standard procedure. How else should we have done it, given that BG7 did not know the outcome/did not decide on the ban?--Eptalon (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we close this discussion now before if turns into more drama :D ? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 08:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be reworded. CM16 is still indefinitely banned right now. It is just that we are allowing the chance to revisit this (if he chooses to request an unblock) in 6 months. The way it is worded now means that he will be unblocked automatically in 6 months. He is community banned indefinitely; in 6 months he may request an unblock. That's the way it is. It is not a community ban of 6 months as Chenzw's wording suggests.

I must say though, I see absolutely zero consensus to make it a 6 month ban. The 6 month time frame was for his topic ban that was proposed if he was unblocked right now. I don't see a single person who suggested "let's reduce his indefinite ban to 6 months." Either way (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense, thanks. Soup Dish (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The block has been reduced from indef to seven months. This means if we don't do anything, he will be able to edit here again in seven months time. Chenzw proposed that his block should be reviewed in six months' time. On a completely different note though: Chenzw was asked to close this because he was uninvolved, or neutral. Ideally, this should end the discussions. Is it that difficult to accept the decision he took after reading through all the arguments? --Eptalon (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Eptalon, Chenzw has clarified: It is indef but he can appeal in 6months. Kennedy (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Sorry if my unclear statement (which has been corrected) stirred up confusion. The block time will be extended to indef if the community discussion in 6 months doesn't yield a consensus to unblock. Chenzw  Talk  11:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be changed to indef, as that is the result. It doesn't end in 7 months, it should be changed in 6 months if his unblock is successful. Kennedy (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) This question is perhaps completely unrelated. CM16 is indefinitely blocked, so he cannot edit here for the next six months. On what basis then should a discussion done in six months give a different result than the discussion we have just had? - There will be nothing new except perhaps for some ban evasion or lack thereof. In the case the discussion in half a year not give a consensus, should CM16 stay blocked? - Sorry to ask, but I have made bad experiences with long-term blocks, they are not as effective as many people think. --Eptalon (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Someone suggested that he will be more mature at the end of the 6 months. How he proves that will be mainly through his user talk and off-wiki communication. If there is no consensus for that particular discussion, then it is indef (or unless proposed otherwise). Chenzw  Talk  11:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-pp of Disney pages

Hi,

I'm sure that others are as sick of the Disney Vandal as I am. What about an indef semi-pp of Ja'far, Aladin and the like? It might help stem this issue. Valid anons can always ask for unprotection. fr33kman talk 00:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easier if we blanket-banned all IP editing. Majorly talk 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many helpful IP users, plus, vandals could always just create accounts.--<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful IP editors can create an account, it isn't difficult. Too many IPs cause a problem here. Majorly talk 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx2) It is something to be considered but it kinda goes against the ethos of Wikipedia fr33kman talk 01:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. How does it? Majorly talk 01:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has always been "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; this has always included anons. We punish the good anons (and there are many) if we forbid all anons from editing. There are many edits that occur via anons that are excellent (interwiki etc.) fr33kman talk 02:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone would be able to edit it still... I disagree with semi-protecting the articles for the sake of this vandal. I have long thought IP editing is a bad idea and still do. Majorly talk 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya, Majorly; but it doesn't sit well with me. I spent almost two years as an anon before creating my account on enWP. I believe that they can be a boon to a project. Most edits are made by newbies and most newbies are anons. I want to both protect and grow this, and all WMF, projects, but want to stay as close to the original reason d'etre as defined by Jimbo. fr33kman talk 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to ban anonymizers like http://www.anonymizer.org?--<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Majorly talk 02:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, they are considered to be "open proxies" and are blockable (and often blocked) by our policies. EhJJTALK 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And these types of anons must be stopped from editing. Anon means no username, not no IP addy! fr33kman talk 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question: I think a 1-year block would be sufficient to stop the Disney vandal without forever semi-protecting all Disney related pages. I fear that 2 or 3 years from now, no one will remember why these pages were blocked and they'll always stay that way. I think it's unlikely that an anon would ask for a page to be unprotected, but they'll probably just leave a note on the talk page, asking us to fix whatever mistake they find. Too bad they won't be able to be bold. EhJJTALK 02:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 1 year should be the maximum pp considered here. fr33kman talk 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of kids who edit will be start editing the fluffy articles. Let's be honest, kids who haven't graduated high school have no business editing a lot of the articles here. So protecting all Disney articles may put kids off. I'm not ideologically opposed to that, just pointing it out. Majorly's suggestion makes more sense. While IPs on EN do make some useful contributions, they do less so here. Soup Dish (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is not something that is absolute, I feel we could try it, and limit it to a low time span (1-3 months). If we see that this really solves our problem with the Disney vandal, or any other, we can always prolong/re-protect. If on the other hand we protected for a year or longer, and forget, the damage done is worse: Who remembers why a particular protection was done 6 months ago? - Most editors may have changed a year from now. These are of course just thoughts. --Eptalon (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought for a while now that we should have a fully protected log page that admins would use to list pages they protect for greater than 6 months. Most pages should auto-unprotect but anything that is really long or indef should be listed in a log page perhaps? fr33kman talk 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who this Disney Vandal is, but if he is causing harm to this wiki, then semi protection of some of the common target articles for a while (6months/year) would not necessarily be a bad idea in my opinion. NotGiven 07:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support semi-protection of the relevant Disney articles for up to 3 months. If he comes back after that we can always protect them again. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally oppose this limited semi-protection but support the move to remove the rights of IP editors to contribute Soup Dish (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I don't like an outright ban on IP edits is that I started my wikimedia life as an anon. I know that's probably a poor reason, but I still have a soft spot for anons (well, good anons anyway). I'm not dogmatic on it here on seWP however as I do understand that many cause problems and those problems do outweigh the good that the decent human beings do via IP editing. fr33kman talk 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I came across User:Investigations, I don't know how appropriate this username is. Additional thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No edits, no deleted edits. The username doesn't look offensive to me. So, there is no reason for a block or whatever you want, in my oppinion. Regards, Barras (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does "Investigations" come across as official? And why would someone be conducting "investigations" on the wiki? What is the need? ...NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds alright to me. It's a noun in the dictionarry, nothing too official :D . Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't think anything can be done here. — RyanCross (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's needed, but as a seasoned username-policy veteran over on enwiki, I can't see anything wrong with it. EVula // talk // 04:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thekohser‎...

Thekohser‎ (talk · contribs) ...is a banned user on en.wiki if I am correct? In accordance with our new tough line on these people, what do people think of Thekohser‎ editing here? He (so far) does not seem to be helping with editing here, instead concentrating on picking up "mistakes". Perhaps enforcing the ban from en.wiki here could be a good idea? Thoughts? Kennedy (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the same comment on IRC. I might be bold here... Goblin 11:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this post, Thekohser has 31 total edits since he joined 4 days ago. Of those edits:

  • 2 were the creation of one-line stubs (but he has stated that he won't put the {{stub}} tag on them, because it "is very taxing on my mental faculties to even author these short, concise, pertinent stubs in such a talent-soaked way.")
  • 2 were the minor fixes of those stubs
  • 6 were edits to his user page, which openly promotes MyWikiBiz and imply that wikipedia administrators are "overbearing militants who have nothing better in life to do"
  • 20 were edits to User talk pages, where he has engaged in numerous debates and failed to AGF of other editors and admins but demanded to be treated with the utmost respect in return
  • 1 was an edit to the Wikipedia names space (WP:RfCU) where he demanded an appology for someone suggesting a CU (which had been denied)

I feel that his pattern of edits is not benefiting our project and is, in fact, wasting our time. Unless there is some indication that this user will begin contributing meaningfully to the article space, I agree with Kennedy's proposal. EhJJTALK 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that everyone disengage with me on my User Talk page, then you sit back and watch if I do any more damage to the project, or whether I aid the project. Can any of you conceive of that possibility? -- Thekohser (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! EhJJTALK 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, EhJJ! It will be my pleasure to try to aid this project now. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you need to add that last sentence? This is the actual problem, stop being disrespectful of others and others will stop disrespecting you. -Djsasso (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of "your" editors had initiated harassment of me on another site dedicated to information about Wikipedia. I came here to warn him to stop harassing me, since he had disabled my ability to contact him on the other site. So as not to be a total ass and just barge in here and warn him to stop his attacks on me, I gave your community an article it was missing, about waterfowl. From the point where I asked this person who, unprovoked, had tracked me down to throw threats and insults at me, I have been shown almost complete disrespect from this community -- in fact, I don't think anyone has done one thing to reprimand the User who had been harassing me. You have focused solely on making sure I fall in line with all your policies. But, I guess off-site tracking and unprovoked threats are fully part and parcel with your policies, since you've done nothing about the other User.
I've just contributed two more new, well-developed articles that I've written previously from scratch, and now release again under the terms of the GFDL. Let's see if the bickering and the moaning about my "attitude" finally cease or not. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It would have been best to have gone through the official channels at Yahoo!Answers rather than bring your complaint to Wikipedia. Since "the other user" has essentially not made any changes on Wikipedia for nearly a month, nor were his comments and actions at Yahoo!Answers related to his editing here, there is no reason to reprimand or block him at this time. While we are a small community, we do not usually police our members' activities "off-wiki". Thanks for adding some new articles and I hope you decide this is a place you'd like to stay and contribute. EhJJTALK 14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Not: I don't care if someone made you sad on another website. Its not something that I could do anything about. Even if it was proven, how can I stop him/her from doing so? What I do care about is your attitude coming here. So, no, we will not stop discussing this because you wish so. This is a discussion about whether or not you will be blocked. I'd suggest you cut out all the sarcastic comments if you wish to continue to edit here. I note you say you don't, so why are you still here? Kennedy (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"made you sad" is a rather condescending and dismissive way to characterize my experience with User:Razorflame. You're quite good at this goading process, Kennedy. I congratulate you. What did you think of the two articles I've added to your project today? How many articles have you conceived today? -- Thekohser (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the ban proposal, his edits aren't benefiting the project. Yottie =talk= 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban. Would be counter-productive to the extreme. Look, Razorflame's behaviour on Yahoo Answers was not particularly impressive, and while we can't stop editors doing what they want on other sites, it does mean we should extend some leeway to Thekohser. A ban would be highly productive. If you lot stopped goading Greg, and took a step back, I doubt there would be a problem. Soup Dish (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose ban. While I agree with being strict on banned users from enwiki, I'm referring to those of the calibre of Christianman16. Thekohser has had some problems, but he seems to be trying a little. I would ask him to try and get on with editors on here, even if they make him feel unwelcome, or treat him badly. There's a little thing called having moral highground. Majorly talk 16:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do indeed relish the moral high ground. You are a keen observer, Majorly. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the court still in session? Is the jury deliberating? -- Thekohser (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sections remain here until 10 days after the last comment. Its clearly closed as opposed. So in 10 days unless someone else comments on it, it will archive automatically. -Djsasso (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't support this at this time. Bans are not/should not be reciprocated except in the most grave of circumstances. No hunts please. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose the ban of Mr. Kohs at this site at this point in time. While I do believe that some of his edits are counterproductive, I believe that he can learn to be more productive if he actually used his abilities to make pages and constructive edits on this site, rather than bicker about things. While I do have a chequered past with this user, I will not allow this to mar my ability to make a correct decision in this matter. Mr. Kohs can stay, so long as he minds the rules of this site. Razorflame 16:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone's had a chance to voice their opinions and it looks like there is no good reason to block at this time. I'm going to consider this discussion closed. Feel free to open a new one if there is a good reason for it. EhJJTALK 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Darius Danesh

  Resolved.

Could someone protect Darius Danesh as it has been receiving a lot of vandalism adding the same nonsense. Possibly 2 weeks as it was protected before I think...? NotGiven 11:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved for the moment. User Theshroom91 is blocked. Barras (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, was just going to say that. Thanks anyway :) NotGiven 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - It was continuing, blocked the user, reverted the IP and locked for 1 week, sysops only. Goblin 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sysops only? Why on earth sysops only, it's a wiki page, any good editor could want to change it. I would do it myself now, but I'd prefer to ask for an explanation fifrst. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed this thread before, but I lowered it to semi-protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Juliancolton and Yotcmdr. Semi-protection is all that should be needed at this time. EhJJTALK 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with the above points. Sysop-only protection is used in cases of edit warring and other such cases, or in cases of extreme and continuing vandalism from both IP and registered users, which, in this case, it is not, so therefore, a semi-protection is enough. Razorflame 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple user vandalism... they could just wait for auto-confirm... Seriously, I know protection is/isn't for. I still think it should be sysop only, thus my one week. Prevention, not punishment. Last resort and all that... Goblin 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, multiple user vandalism, but not extreme enough to warrant a full protection of the page. Semi-protection is about prevention and not punishment, whereas if you fully protected the page, it would be punishment because nobody other than a sysop could edit that page, even whitelisted, trusted users like me or Shappy, for example. Cheers, Razorflame 18:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it warrants full protection but w/e. It's still hardly punishment, and it's only one week. If you were that fussed then you could easily use {{editprotected}}... Goblin 19:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was not fussed at all. I just believe that a full protection was overkill, IMHO. Razorflame 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for RFA to be reopened

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

User:Gwib left during a reconfirmation RFA. Now the user has returned, should not the RFA be reopened in order to determine consensus? Otherwise we may set a dangerous precedent of users leaving when during reconfirmations, only to return? Soup Dish (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be reopened. The user in question had the perogative to leave or retire if he wanted to, and we are all very surprised to see him back. What is done is done, and we should just move on with our lives. No need to burden ourselves with silly things like this. Razorflame 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Razorflame. And I think the result of the reconfirmation is clear. So there is no reopening needed. Barras (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RF and Barras. No need to drag out old drama for no reason. Majorly talk 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was clearly on the way to passing anyways so I don't really see the point of bringing up old drama. Especially since it was a voluntary reconfirmation. That being said if he wishes to reopen it himself he is welcome to. And I must point out the irony of your comment here compared to your oppose reason in that reconfirmation. -Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then let it be noted a precedent has been set. That is all Soup Dish (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prescedent hasn't been set, Rfa isn't law, a previous outcome doesn't necessarily mean the next outcome will have to be the same. In fact it rarely is. In fact if you hadn't mentioned it I bet most people wouldn't have remembered. -Djsasso (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hadn't remembered. No precedent has been set at all, and all this drama mongering by Soup Dish is highly disruptive. Majorly talk 17:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, neither had I. -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Hello all; Gwib left during his reconfirmation RFA. The RFA then timed out. Therefore reopening it is probably useless, if really wanted a new one should be done. --Eptalon (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair, thank you Eptalon for your approach to this Soup Dish (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Majorly: Soup dish just creating more drama. No need to re-open it. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone so concerned about civility, your assumption of bad faith there is rather surprising. Please watch what you say. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to pile-on, but I also think it'd be unnecessary drama. EVula // talk // 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_24&oldid=8927414"