Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 29

User talk:Christianrocker90

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

---

I've been reviewing the contribution and ban history of the contributor. I believe that

1. Enough time has passed since the ban
2. The editor has learned better now
3. We can benefit from the editor's mainspace contributions.

I would like, and if the community is willing, to have this ban reviewed early. Thank you for considering. With respect, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel a review at this time is a fair thing to both the community and the banned user. fr33kman ^talk 03:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with an early review. There is nothing to show that the editor has changed, and we certainly should not be reviewing bans early - that's just as bad as not making them in the first place. I, and at least one other user, have been semi-regularly "harrassed" on IRC by this user - what I mean is that they are trying to make themselves come across as a changed person in the hope of a few extra support votes. While I don't think IRC is appropriate for wiki situations, in this case it's the only thing I have to go on and it's certainly a way of getting an idea of how someone will act on wiki. Regards, Goblin 07:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

What is there to review that has happened since the ban, besides chit-chat on IRC? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no actual on wiki "evidence" (quite obviously) and therefore in this case all that I have is what has gone down on IRC. You should know that I'm not the person who drags things on wiki from IRC, but as I have nothing else to use in this case I have been "forced". Goblin 09:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

May I know what has changes since he was banned? Pmlineditor ∞ 07:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's changed; or if it has negatively. He's trying too hard to win people round, so much so that it is appearing as such, and it's this conduct that I do not desire to have on this wiki. Regards, Goblin 09:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

• Two or three weeks early or later will nothing change. It doesn't matter to me. I don't have an opinion to this case at all and keep neutral. Barras (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely no reason whatsoever to review the ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• As above; No reason to review. Kennedy (talk • changes). 10:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• If he wants an early review give him an early review, it's not that early. As you say there isn't a whole lot that can change in the next 2-3 weeks or whatever it is until his stated review date. Bans/Punishments have been reviews (and changed or upheld) early since the dawn of time. It hasn't broken a wiki (or legal system) yet, if you don't want his ban changed then the review is the time to bring it up. Stalling until his already stated review time (6 months?) doesn't really make it any better for anyone. Why Not? Jamesofur (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said before, nothing's changed, what is there to review? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, question: are you saying nothing's changed or will change there isn't any reason to review, period, ever? or are you saying no reason to review now? It was my impression from what I can see that it was decided a review could be done aroundish 6 months (November 9th or so). If that's the case there really isn't any reason to NOT review it now. If your just saying he'll never change I don't want to review it at all... I guess there really isn't anything to tell you, its obvious you've made up your mind and there isn't any way to change it. I like giving people chances, maybe I assume good faith to much, but to be honest I don't see a reason why you can't hear him out and maybe give him another chance god knows there are plenty of admins who appear ready to block his ass as soon as he steps out of line. I'll admit that some of his previous actions both here and on EnWiki seriously worry me, very seriously. Does that mean I'm not willing to listen to him? No it doesn't. Also, before someone uses the You weren't here you don't know what your talking about bs. I have spent hours, on multiple occasions reading every bit of his ban discussions and the reasons behind them, both here and on En and have on multiple occasions counciled AGAINST trying to review his ban, I don't think I would have made the post above that scream made. Given the amount of hatred that some users have towards him maybe you should take the fact that I wasn't here at the time as a good thing. Some of what I have seen through the archives rivals anything he ever did (which to be honest is pretty bad in some places) and easily could have led to civility blocks on the part of other users and admins. As I said before why not? rather then making everyone say Why.Jamesofur (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to make everyone say "Why", I just want to know what has suddenly changed in order for us to review the ban earlier. If someone had presented a case with evidence to support an earlier review, no worries, but right now, nothing's changed. And after all, it's just my opinion. If there's a consensus to spend a couple of weeks um'ing and ah'ing over what to say about nothing new then that's just fine too. I've made my position known and now I'll get back to reviewing VGAs, doing some GAs up a bit and writing some DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I mean to say, that enough time has expired that he has learned his lesson. Whilst I was looking through the history, I was even less convinced on the grounds of the ban. Also, CR90 has not discussed this with me, or me with him. I don't get how IRC played into my request here. Just on the merits of my request... please. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's have the review. Go for it. As one of my old teachers used to say, nothing ventured, nothing gained. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) (May again be longer, my personal opinion) CR90 has not edited since his ban, at least I assume so. For this reason, there is nothing (except IRC contact) we could base ourselves on. When we therefore review the block in its current form, this is based on old evidence. If we do not take new evidence into account, all we can get is that in some kind of vote, editors decide differently (for no apparent reason). This is probably a pointless approach, as TRM has pointed out. The only other option we have is to collect new evidence; in the form of unblocking the user, and evaluating his edits. At the moment I am not talking about time periods, all I say is that if the community decides to re-evaluate the decision, it should probably do so on new evidence, as doing so on old one is pointless. People change during their life. Making mistakes is the only way we have to learn what is right and what isn't. --Eptalon (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support some type of probation. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Review

From the looks of the block review, it appears mostly his issue was with POV in projectspace. Article space is our gold here. I would propose that we unblock him, and give him a 60 day restriction from editing projectspace. As was cited on the ban discussion, restricted editors can be more of a benefit then banned editors. There was no real consensus for the restriction, but the arguments for were strong. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually had a problem with his putting POV in articlespace and his tendancy to want to censor things which is against WP:NOTCENSORED while there is no onwiki proof he has or hasn't changed in this respect, he still very much shows he has the characteristics of still being likely to do this based on conversations I have had with him offline. So I most likely would not support an unban. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Per my comment above, we had a discussion when he was banned, nothing evidential has come to light to change the results of that discussion. I do not support an unban. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would the community be amenable to a 15-30 day probation. So as not to add workload, I can volunteer to watch edits. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, as I said above, nothing has changed and I'm not open to any form of review, probationary or not. The only evidence I have is IRC contact and quite frankly that has made me think that things have got worse or not changed. So, it's a categorical, definite no from me. My views now remain as they were when I made the block back in May. Goblin 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

• I wouldn't mind a 15-30 day probation. Per Eptalon, you can't judge on the past, and of course you can't edit during a ban, so the user either needs to be unblocked now or in early November, as promised a while ago. If we decide not to have it now, it will still be needed to be reviewed in November, so there's really not much point postponing it until a few weeks later. He's only been using IRC to communicate with Simple Wikipedia users now because he can't edit onwiki except for using his talk page for a limited type of communication to other users, emailing users personally wouldn't be of much help and may be even considered annoying to editors. So, from a few comments above, I heard that he had POV issues then, so now it would be fine for a probation to determine whether's he changed or not. I'm in support for a probation when the ban review time comes, but personally per Barras I don't care whether it's done now or then, it still needs to be done no matter what. In the transcluded statement below he claimed he benefited from his ban, so hopefully a probation would be able for him to demonstate and gain trust in the community for him again. иιƒкч? 12:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually to clear up some misconceptions. It was said we may review it in 6 months, not that we would. So we don't necessarily have to do it in a month. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement from CR90

This is transcluded. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have learned my lesson over the past six months while quietly sitting and watching Wikipedia work. The "POV Pushing" of stupid teenager thinking he knows everything, which of course means I was wrong, I have matured over the past 6 months, I believe I do have a better head on my shoulders than I did six months ago. The disruption I was to discussion was while bad and I admit I was wrong, was just me standing up for what I believe, I will cede from discussion after making my initial point from now on. I agree I was a jackarse before my ban, I guess it was the new-found stress of the wiki getting to me. So I guess I needed the ban to use as a forced-wikibreak to destressify, now if you will let me I would love to get back to work on those wrestling articles and now work on baseball articles. Thanks for reading.--  † CR₉₀  22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the end of the transclusion. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness, the last time I read this a few days ago I thought you said this is the end of the discussion, glad I read it again. Anyway, I still feel there has been nothing to review, however, there will never be anything to review if he's continually blocked, so I suppose it may be an idea to get this "review", which will just be another vote on ban, over and done with. Now is a good a time as any I suppose. Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say a few things on behalf of CR90. I've spent the time since CR90 has been blocked talking often to him on IRC. We've chatted a great deal about his ban, why it came about, how it could have been avoided and generally about many other things in life. I've witnessed a young man who was arrogant, opinionated, contentious and frequently unyielding in his actions or mindset change in many ways. Aaron and I have discussed how to interact without allowing your personal thoughts and beliefs on a matter spill over into conversation with others. Not many people know it, but I am a conservative, fundamental Christian; it's not relevant to the project so I've not really brought it up. I believe in respect for what ever anyone wishes to do in and with their own lives an' it harm none. In these talks I've seen Aaron change drastically. We've had a lot of discussions about the need for and desirability of things like the separation of church and state. Just the other day we were discussing the recognition of religious marriages by the state; I was much impressed to see him type that he now felt that homosexual marriages should be recognized. He felt it would be a sin personally, but that in a free society it shouldn't be restricted. I've spoken to Aaron about why it's important to have a totally neutral attitude in dealing with Wikipedia and how to go about it. I once asked him whether or not he saw the need to undo an anon's edit which replaced "Jesus is considered by Christians to be the Son of God." with "Jesus is the Son of God and Saviour of mankind." He said he had no problem with reverting it because the second sentence was a POV push. This has probably not been evident to anyone else because it's been off-wiki, via PM on IRC. But, I know he's changed a lot. A small, recent piece of evidence can actually be found on wiki; In the statement from Aaron above, he uses the profane word "jackarse". Surely, that's not the same guy! I fully understand the arguments of people who don't want CR90 back on the project, but I believe he's changed, for the better. Personally, I think we should give him a chance and let him return. I think he must agree to be on probation for a minimum of 6 months if not longer. It's up to Aaron to ensure that he impresses us. This would take the form of heavy mainspace article work (not just wrestling, but educational too), and taking part in processes like DYK, PGA, PVGA and agreeing 100% to have NO POV pushes at all. We give him one chance, and it's up to him to make good use of it. fr33kman ^talk 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Outcome

This discussion is stalled. Could an uninvolved administrator experienced editor please sum it up for us? :) Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Being an uninvolved editor (haven't really participated), I would like to think about the outcome and will give my opinion soon. Pmlineditor ∞ 06:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary: CR90 has created a lot of conflict in his time as an editor on this wiki. He has also made a considerable contribution to writing articles. Because of this, even a discussion on his proposed return still generates a lot of feeling. I would propose that we honor the terms of the six month ban which expires on November 8 and reinstate his ability to edit on that date. Without this it is impossible to really know whether he has matured. In view of his previous history it would be quite reasonable to take a zero tolerance approach to any repeat of the issues that caused the ban. These issues included POV pushing in both his contribution to articles and on his user page. I am sure that his every action will be watched very closely. I would hope that he realizes how deeply he has upset members of this community by his actions in the past. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• From what I see: CR90 has been a problematic editor in the pastt; however, he has contributed to article work in the past. Per what Peter says, without unblocking him, it will be impossible to know whether he has matured. I would propose an unblock when his six month block expires and let him edit for a period of one month from then. If he repeats the behavior which led to his block, then I believe he should be indefed. I think mentorship by some experienced will help as well. From what I judge of the discussion, I see consensus to unblock CR90 and let him edit; because otherwise it is impossible to judge whether he has changed or not. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 06:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome

OK! After re-reading the discussion a few times, I'd like to make a decision as an uninvolved person here. First: I couldn't care less about the ban and didn't participate in the first discussion six months ago, as well as didn't take part in this one (with one exemption: I stated above that I don't care), because I'm too lazy to read long discussions. I think you can't get a more neutral persons to close this.

CR90 made before his block several/many mistakes. Therefore, he was banned by the community. On the other hand, he made also good contributions to our mainspace. If we don't unblock CR90 we can't see if his behaviour has changed.

The decision will be, that CR90 will be unblocked after the six months ended (on 8 November 2009). He gets a three months probation. This means that if he does any POV pushing/bad behaviour things or something else he can be blocked by any admin without discussion. The blocking admin has to state the reason here on ANI with difflinks. After the three months of probation all users are allowed to say here on ANI whether the user should be blocked again or remain unblocked. (Note: This will not be a long discussion, if no-one remembers this, he stays unblocked and nothing will happen.) I know that this is a controversial decision and that not everyone will agree with me. Probably we have luck and CR90's behavious has changed and we get a new/old contributor, probably it hasn't and so we reblock him.

Summary: Unblock, 3 months probation, in this time he can be blocked without any discussion.

Thanks

--Barras (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

My RfA

Resolved.

No administrative action indicated in this case. Parties have received a third opinion via this discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved.

Crat has confirmed his decision. 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I really don't care about this RfA, or what the outcome is, but I do care about how it's been handled.

It was closed yesterday as a "fail" with an apparent 9th oppose vote, giving 57% instead of 60%. When I brought this up with fr33kman he realised his error, and said he would hold a crat chat. However, of our seven crats I have spoken to three who know nothing of this chat, and it's now more than 24 hours on.

Sort it please guys, don't think it's gonna go away.

This is me not caring about the outcome - Chenzw suggested I pop up here.

Goblin 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

A crat chat does not have to be held. We elect a crat to make the choices. We put our trust in them to do this. There is no requirement that there be a crat chat. If i had been closing this Rfa. I would have closed as the same result. The percent would have been even lower as I would have struck out TRM's and Chenzw's votes. As they came after the end of the time, while I would allow late votes from non-crats. It is unexcusable that a crat woul forgo closing so they could try and push a candidate they like to passing. To be honest I was this close to putting both of them up to strip them of their bits. While it is not necessarily abuse of their bits, it is definately misuse. Freakmans close was correct, and he had the right to make the call he did. You were 5% (using the 60% number and 8% using the 57% number) below the communities general acceptance of a pass. You really need to let this go. I find it amusing that you were highly critical of freakman closing a rfx before less than the communities agree percents. Why should we not follow it for you when you wanted it followed for others? This is pure sour grapes. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read what I wrote: "I don't care". I'm bringing this up because Fr33kman told me he would be holding crat chat following his error (I have logs) and the fact that of the seven crats three of them know nothing about it. I couldn't care less about the outcome, i'm simply saying if a chat is said it's goig to happen, please have it happen. Ta, Goblin 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

Based on what freekman told me, he said he only told you he was waiting on an email from another admin. You probably assumed he meant a crat chat. But I will let him respond when he gets here. He is under no obligation to offer you a crat chat. As well I see no on-wiki proof he ever offered this. Without on-wiki proof, it doesn't pass muster. (logs or not, anything off-wiki isn't binding. I know you are aware of this) You are just attempting to make freakman look bad. Its these kinds of posts that caused you to fail you realize? -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I have been contacted by mail, but did not have a chance to reply yet; be patient, I am doing what I can. --Eptalon (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The words "crat" and "chat" were explicitly used, mutliple times, in that order. Once again, I could not care less about the outcome - it means nothing to me - what I care about is the fact that I was told there would be one, and I also have two (and will find some more) examples of RfXs that passed with less that the required percentage; one of which was closed by you. Pot calling the kettle black, much? Goblin 20:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

I have never closed a single Rfa. So I am not sure what you are talking about. You might want to check your facts. And again he is free to change his mind. Hell he is free to tell you anything he wants off wiki. All that matters is on-wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I meant your RfB. That was closed [11/16 = 68.875% - over 6% off the required %. FSM was also passed with 57.9%. Yes, I know he can change his mind, but that's very impolite and when I last spoke he was intent on having it. Cheers, Goblin 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Right, and never did I complain about it, never did I demand a crat chat. That was all you guys. You were the one complaining that I was promoted less than the required percent. And now you are trying to get us promote you from less than the required percent. This is a double standard. And to quote you, "This is yet another reason why simple is crap. We have (seemingly) one rule for one, one for another. Our admins care about their egos and who likes them". This is you trying to get certain treatment one way or the other when it benefits you. As was the case with you and my rfb. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I might also point out that you ranted and moaned about it all day yesterday, if I were him I would have told you anything to get you to stop as well. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

@eptalon, you're not one of the three crats i'm referring to... Goblin 20:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

@Bluegoblin7: A crat chat should involve all active crats.... --Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. From the sample that I spoke too, they had not heard anything. Those three haven't heard anything, it was my guess that the others had not either. Goblin 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

I have no idea who you talked to about it, but I know atleast 3 of us had discussed it prior to this post of yours. And another was emailed. And the guy who suggested you post here was one of them. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Fr33kman

I most certainly did inform BG7 that I'd hold a crat-chat if he wished one. He indicated he would like it to be held. I contacted DJSasso and Eptalon. I was a supporting vote, DJSasso was an opposing vote and Eptalon was uninvolved. I have not contacted any other crat because I feel three is enough, 1 for, 1 against, and 1 not involved. I personally would like to see BG7 regain his mop but did not feel, in light of the method of his losing it in the first place, and in light of a poor example set onwiki with regards to comments that people have found insulting, that I would make use of discretion and promote. 60% is not 65% and this wiki (and BG7) have indicated that they prefer a straight vote count (see: DJSasso's RFB). I do not feel bound by any form of precedent that has seen others promoted at less than 65% or even less than 60%; each RFA is unique in my opinion. I have not received any input from Eptalon, but look forwards to receiving it. A crat-chat does not need to involve any particular number of crats, it is a courtesy only and a crat chat can not overturn the decision of a crat, it is an unofficial method of seeking advice and opinion, and the original crat can still do as he sees fit. I await input from Eptalon, then I shall make my mind up whether or not to change the outcome. Given the aggressive manner this has been handled by the candidate, that seems unlikely. I apologize to Gobby if he feels I've been slacking, I have a very bad cold and have been in bed most of the day; we do all have real lives. fr33kman ^talk 21:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

More than 24 hrs have passed since the end time of the RFA. I am sure that the uninvolved crat (Eptalon) is a busy person in real life, but I have received no communications and I am unwilling to keep the matter open any longer. My final decision is: not promoted. fr33kman ^talk 03:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Eptalon

Hello there, I had a quick glance at the RFA (here) - At closure there were 12 votes in favor, and 8 opposed to BG7 becoming admin. In other words, 60% of those who voted did so in favor of promotion, 40% of the people were opposed to it. This is the numbers game; Bureaucrats are there to decide with the Criteria for Adminship to help them. When they do they look at the text of what people write. Unless it can be shown that a closing crat acted against the rules, or that he grossly misjudged the situation, there is really not much room for change, esp. since the criteria themselves require a higher amount of support. This community needs to have trust in their crats, which it elected to take the decisions. In other words, I see no way to not trust Fr33kman's judgment. Sorry for the late reply, I am pretty busy in real life. (as always, I speak for myself; others' opinions may vary.)--Eptalon (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by The Rambling Man

I've asked repeatedly for bureaucrat User:Djsasso to justify his comments that include "It is unexcusable that a crat woul forgo closing so they could try and push a candidate they like to passing" as it is clear to me that is suggestive that either or both of me and Chenzw are being accused of trying to "rig" an RFA. Apparently Djsasso thinks his wording of "push a candidate they like to passing" equates to simply adding a "support" vote. But his following comment "To be honest I was this close to putting both of them up to strip them of their bits. While it is not necessarily abuse of their bits, it is definately misuse." alludes to a more troubling conclusion. I would like to have it put on record right now that I voted, albeit a couple of hours late, for a candidate that I considered to be a net positive for the project. As far as I'm aware, 'crats are still allowed to vote (see Vector's contributions) without being castigated and accused of all-sorts. The vote was late, and sure that's unfortunate, but was it an excuse to suggest that my (and Chenzw's) behaviour was "unexecusable"? Finally, in Djsasso's latest comment, he accuses me that "What you are probably worried about is that en will notice your mistake here and react poorly to it". Nonsense as I've advocated a widespread community discussion, and hoped he would start it. He hasn't, so here we are. For those that are bothered, the thread so far is here. All I'm asking for is a community consensus, one way or another, that decides whether I and Chenzw attempted to "push a candidate [we] like to passing" and RFA. If the consensus is that we did, then I will assure you that I will resign and no longer place the position of Simple English Bureaucrat in such jeopardy ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: Instead of !voting why did you not close? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on Djsasso's talkpage, I was only just alerted to the forthcoming closure of the RFA when Chenzw voted. It arrived on my watchlist so I voted. Yes, it was late, but the vote was genuine and was in support of a candidate who I think genuinely improves this Wikipedia. 'Crats are allowed to vote and that's why I (and probably Chenzw too) didn't close it. We just voted. A couple of hours late. And then we get accused of trying to "push" a candidate we "like"? By a fellow 'crat? Unbelievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I followed your both talk on Djsasso's talk page. To vote on a RFA (even support or oppse) isn't in any kind an abuse of any tool. All, also our crats are allowed to do so. My problem is, that I agree in an other way with Djsasso: If a crat come across an overdue RFx, and the crat isn't involved, so s/he should close it instead of voting in it. I'm pretty sure, that Chenzw and TRM have known about the RFA for this week. There was enough time to voice an opinion. I have absolutely no problems if someone votes a few mins after the end, but I have one if the voter is an uninvolved crat who can close it. This was in my opinion not the way a crat should act, but it is not abuse or something, it's just sad that the user had to wait over ?? hours for a result. Perhabs it is really the problem that we just need more crats, that this not happens again. To be honest: our crats should work together and not against each other and respect the decissions (I made once the mistake that I was really angry that Fr33kman promoted someone to a crat, but this was absolutely wrong from me). We have to respect the decission that Chenzw and TRM didn't close the RFA and voted instead. I think it was not the best choice, but who cares? Me not. Barras (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Barras, I wanted to see how BG7 handled the whole process. He's a close call for me, but his contributions and dedication can't be overlooked. That's why I didn't vote straight away. I can't just show up at exactly the right time. We all live in different time zones you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we allow 7 days. -DJSasso (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which makes no difference if you happen to have a job/live in an alternate timezone where you can't vote at the moment you say others should. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We allow 7 days so that there are no excuses about job or living in a different time zone. There are 7 days to vote, if you still can't make it to vote in that time frame then you don't get to vote. Simple as that. -DJSasso (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Read what I said about reading how BG7 would cope with the RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read what you said. It is your fault for missing the end of the RFA. -DJSasso (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What a shame. The "end of the RFA" occurs when an uninvolved 'crat closes it. Also, you should be realistic. You may not have anything better to do than sit here on SEWP but I do and I was late getting back to it. You forgot to AGF. And then you went further by accusing me and Chenzw of impropriety. Fellow 'crats. Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am being realistic, we give you 7 days in which to vote. You choosing to wait till the end and then ignoring the duties that have been assigned to you is simply not right.-DJSasso (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, but there is a gadget in Special:preferences which brings up an UTC time clock of the right of the log out buttom. I use it... it's quite helpful. And if I remember right, you are from the UK... UTC is or in summer is nearly your time zone. All times we use here are always in UTC. Barras (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure sure, but perhaps you don't realise what it's like to spend 8 hours a day at work? I'm a professional engineer and, as such, I can't make SEWP all-day, every day... The gadget is great if I'm at my desk, but a lot of the time I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand this. But as a crat, you should check the time and such minor things even with making yourself a notice on your desk (like I do with RFDs for the case no other admin close it) Barras (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps when you're doing a £3 million acceptance of a system, you'll think "oh yah, post-it note on my desk so I can vote on Bluegoblin's RFA"? Come on. We're human. It happens. Point is that I and Chenzw are being accused of trying to "push" this RFA through. And that's the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you two voted after the regular end of the RFA. As I said: crats are allowed to vote on RFAs (and should do this), but if I see that I'm too late to vote, so I would just close. Shit happens and if I can't vote or forget it, so I have to live with it. It isn't the end of the world to forget something. But it isn't nice for the candidate to wait for several for a result when there are two crats around who doesn't close it. I can fully understand that we all are human, but if I miss something, (to vote, to do something else) so I shouldn't do. That's just my pov. Barras (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Barras. Problem is that I (and Chenzw) voted really close to the end of the RFA and therefore exempted ourselves from closing it. This discussion really isn't about marginally late voting, its about Djsasso's accusations of "unexcusable" behaviour and "misuse" of something (not sure what) that he added the section or two above here. I want it to be made clear that we neither abused our positions nor engaged in "unexcusable" behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You keep assuming that I said you rigged the vote. I said you voted instead of closing so someone you supported could be pushed towards support. This is a true fact, by supporting someone you push them closer to passing (as does everyone who votes support). It has absolutely nothing to do with rigging the vote. You have chosen to see it as an acusation. My accusation is actually that you ignored the responsibilities of your position. Not that you rigged the vote like you seem to think. The two are very different things. -DJSasso (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an entirely neutral party (well, I voted in the RfA, but that doesn't really make me biased): Uh, the scheduled ending date is a mere recommendation, and not a strict limit; therefore, as long as it hasn't been officially archived, it's fair game for anyone to vote in. Keep in mind that nobody has any obligation to exercise their position (ie. a 'crat doesn't have to close an RfA, they can simply vote in it). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me a policy saying its not a strict time limit? I am actually curious because I do take it to be fairly strict. -DJSasso (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh... you actually should be asking for a policy which says it is a strict time limit. Bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a policy, that says Rfa's last 7 days, it doesn't say about 7 days. This is why I need a policy saying there isn't a strict time limit. -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, are you referring to the "guideline" that says "The vote runs for one week"? So, once again, a "guideline" (not a policy) that says "one week"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Right and to ignore a guideline you need a legitimate reason, waiting untill the last minute and forgetting it was about to close is not such a reason. -DJSasso (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

RfAs have never been strict, because working on a strict end closure is unenforcable. There's not always a bcrat around to close for one thing, and another point is that RfAs are often extended, completely at bcrat discretion. Back to the matter at hand, bureaucrats are members of the community too and are completely allowed to vote on RfAs. It is better that he voted, otherwise to close may have meant bias. Majorly talk 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Majorly sums up my thoughts pretty well; since there's no policy that says RfAs must last exactly seven days, the logical step is to assume that the scheduled ending time should be treated as a recommendation rather than a deadline. Perhaps we need a definitive guideline on this? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

While there is no policy, in order to ignore a guideline you must have good reason, like more discussion is needed etc. Any non-crat voting late would be a non-issue to me. Its the fact a crat chose to vote instead of close when it was past the time limit that I have issue with. That is like seeing a vandal vandalize but saying, meh I like that guy so I will let it go. -DJSasso (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I move now on under all comments, because it is late (in my time zone and I'm too lazy look up the right place in the wasteland of text above [not with any bad meaning]): To make another statement, TRM as well as Chenzw didn't abuse any of their tools. They just voted late. I think a crat shouldn't act this way, but I accept it. If I had been TRM or Chenzw, so I had closed it, but I'm not one of them. It was probably not the right decission to vote as a crat, especially due to the fact that we aren't enwiki and have over 30 users with crat rights, where I guess, there is always at least one uninvolved crat. If I read this whole drama, I think we really need one, two or even three more active crats. That would probaably not rise up such a drama. Barras (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sub-comments by Fr33kman

First off, I'm starting to think my crat decisions are jinxed. :-) I think that every one here is first and foremost an editor, some have also the sysop hat, and others have that plus the crat hat also. But we remain editors. I support anyone who had a named account at the moment an RFA is begun is able to vote in it. This includes crats. As can also be seen by my closure of this RFA, I also believe crats can be neutral and fair to the concept of consensus even if they have taken part in a process. As such I fully support the two "late" crat votes. I also agree with Julian when he says that a closure time is a recommendation, a suggestion, a guideline. Certainly crats have extended the closure time of a an RFA if they felt more comment would be a good idea. In a similar manner RFAs sometimes get closed within minutes per WP:SNOW. Personally I considered extending the end date of BG7's RFA #4 but felt it probably would have just ended up with the same result. As to whether or not the two final support votes should have been cast. Well, it would have been nice for a crat to close the RFA when the deadline expired, because at that time the RFA was a definite not promoted. So I can understand DJSasso's point. However, the votes ultimately did not alter the outcome. As I have stated, I support every editors right to vote in these things, crat, sysop or otherwise. fr33kman ^talk 09:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by NonvocalScream

Discussion is healthy. I will say this much... RFX is not a strict time limit. The fact the TRM voted instead of closing is no big deal. In the even that all crats have become involved, I'm sure that an administrator can be found to close the RFX discussion. Sometimes someone other than a crat may have to close. But two ideals I will state:

1. Functionaries such as administrators, crats, checkusers, oversighters do not have to exercise those flags.
2. Crats have and always will be allowed to vote in an RFA.
3. In the event that all crats are involved, find a sysop to close... unless of course you don't trust us.

Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they do not have to excercise their flags, but ethics says they should when the time limit has passed and no uninvolved crat has come along to close the decision. Ethically it was wrong of them to vote instead of closing. I have said this to TRM, I specifically said he didn't break a rule, but instead he acted in a way that was not ethical. I will restate for the millionth time, I never had a problem with either of them voting, except that they had 7 days in which to do it, its why we give so much time, choosing to wait untill the very last moment and then forgetting to vote is no excuse. If an admin sat and watched a vandal vandalizing a bunch of articles, sure they can choose to not use their flag to block said vandal. Does that make it right? Of coruse not, its unethical. This is the same situation, we promoted them to close Rfx's. When the time limit is up they should be closing them unless its a close case where more discussion is required. Of which this was not prior to them both voting. To not do so is just as equally unethical as letting the vandal continue. If they aren't going to use their flags they should not have them. -DJSasso (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Two very different things. Stopping vandalism is necessary to prevent damage to the Wikipedia. Voting in an RFA is perfectly allowable. You waving "unethical" in my face (to add to "unexcusable" and "misuse") is now becoming mildly amusing as you clearly have no ethics of your own when dealing maturely and sensibly with situations like this. You could have had a chat with me and/or Chenzw to get our points of view, but instead you came over to the Admin noticeboard and accused us of malpractice. Vicious. I hope, by now, you realise that voting or not voting, closing or not closing, nothing was "unethical", nothing was a "misuse" or "abuse", nothing was "unexecusable", other than your attitude towards two of your fellow 'crats. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No I still agree with my position, I had far more people come to me an disagree with what you did than have posted here agreeing. Sadly they haven't had the time or desire to post about it. Again you are completely fine to vote in an Rfa, I never said you couldn't. Voting late as a crat is not right. It does damage the wiki, just like vandalism but in another way. I did talk to chenzw who admited that your two votes should be struck. I didn't talk to you because when anyone questions you, you act like a child, like you did on my talk page. There was no point trying to reason with someone who you know is going to be unreasonable. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Protection errors

Fellow administrators... whilst I was reviewing logs last night, I noticed that we are making some simple errors. :) Please remember that "User request within on space" is not a valid reason for protecting a User:Talk page. There must be vandalism, or some other compelling reason to protect a talk page. Just a reminder... and very warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this, the last protection to an user talk page was made by me. The TP was that of Katerenka, which if you see has a rather long history of vandalism. I remember unprotecting BG7's page because he requested it. I'm not sure which protection you're referring to, though. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not go naming names :) I just want to point it out, as a reminder. I was not going through "last nights logs" I was going through logs "last night" This means I covered many days in the logs. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the section is more for me, because I protected on 12 September Mythdon's talk page until January. I unprotected now. Barras (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If the attacks and vandalism on my talk page recur, will it be re-protected? —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not as long as it was protected last time probably. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully, that won't become necessary. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 20:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment was fine. There is no issue here, there was vandalism. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Need (...or would like) more crats...

Please consider nominating some. I'll volunteer... and I am sure there are other excellent candidates should I not suit the position. But we should probably find another one or two. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's a significant need, I'll be happy to volunteer, but I'm not sure electing more 'crats is necessarily the right answer. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To prevent the above from reoccuring... I believe this is a viable solution. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The above had nothing to do with how many crats we have. There were still uninvolved crats around, and involved crats can still close Rfas. Note, freekman voted and closed. -DJSasso (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Which he probably shoudln't have done, as there were still uninvolved crats. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 08:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I mailed both of them and they didn't reply... I'd be happy to have another crat. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this project needs anymore bureaucrats. The ones we have are doing a good enough job. Razorflame 09:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Make every admin a 'crat. Problem solved Soup Dish (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in having an extra crat. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 10:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem if another admin decided to run for B, but its not direly needed that we should round up volunteers. Kennedy (talk • changes). 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This community needs to trust their bureaucrats

Hello all, I am starting a new thread here (as the one above is already getting lengthy). I am writing this without the recent closure (see above) in mind; these comments are just "general". They are not meant to favor certain users, or to accuse others. Some time ago, there were just two or three Bureaucrats, Vector, Creol and later me. Vector is still around, Creol has since left the project. At that time we had fewer users, and it was frequent that the bureaucrat who closed, also voted in the RfA. Later on, we "silently agreed" that if possible the person who votes does not close, if it can be avoided. This is however no "tight rule", I think all our bureaucrats are capable of judging an RfA, even if they voted in it - Voting is expressing one's opinion, closing involves judging what the community wants. It may well be that a bureaucrat has a certain opinion about a candidate, but as he sees what certain people wrote, he closes completely differently to his opinion.

All our bureaucrats -- me included --were hand-picked by the community, to take decisions in RfAs. They are legitimised by the election. It is not possible to elect someone to do a certain task, and then question them every time they exercise this task; this is counterproductive, as anyone can see. We are currently discussing a crat decision, but we should rather spend our time writing articles or improving this Wikipedia.

As a last note: If anyone thinks that some of our crats cannot be trusted in their decisions, please say so. This community can also have the crat flag (or any other flag) taken away. But otherwise, please stop arguing about a crat decision. It is unproductive, and only takes time we could otherwise spend improving this Wikipedia.--Eptalon (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Permissions proposal

Discussion at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Proposal_re_Administrators_and_Crats. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Samlaptop85213

Resolved. User blocked.

Hello there!

The in February (?) indef banned Samlaptop85213 (talk · contribs) requests now an unblock. I left already a comment on his talk page, but more input from others would be nice. talk page link. Kind regards Barras (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring everyone's attention to this, in which an IP address (currently blocked) asks EhJJ to reduce the block to January 2010 and claims to be Samlaptop85213. Either this is Samlaptop85213 evading his/her block, or an impersonator pretending to be the user in question. The IP address was blocked by Mentifisto. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 02:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the block log for that IP. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that you modified the block to one year, and then reverted to 72 hours (which was the original duration by Mentifisto). I also see that the IP was blocked for sockpuppetry. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 04:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you see it was blocked already. Please stop pointing stuff out like this. You have been told before. -DJSasso (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave indefinitely blocked as this user caused quite a commotion earlier this year. Shorter blocks have had no effect on said user. Razorflame 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't indef an IP. -DJSasso (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind I just realized you mean the actual user acount. -DJSasso (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend leaving this as an indefinite block. This user is creating havoc at en.wikipedia. He vandalizes under a dynamic IP almost daily. Take a look here if you'd like a more thorough reason not to extend any forgiveness to this unrepentant vandal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked the user and disabled mail and talk page function. Keeps indef blocked. Barras (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

World War I

World War I has been hard hit by anonymous editors removing portions of the content. Please semi-protect it. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 15:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Six vandalisms in 14 days is being "hard hit"? It's under control I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If the page continues to get hit, I will re-post my request. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you do, consider whether it's a waste of time. Three or four attacks a day would warrant a protection, but two or three a week? All of which were reverted virtually straight away? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's up to your discretion. It's not my right to direct you to protect the page, but my right to request protection. As I said before: If it continues, I'll re-post. Can someone please mark this as resolved since this has been declined?—Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bare in mind its also our right to block you for being disruptive when you continue to do things people have suggested is not correct. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.47.153.128

Resolved. Never mind. Fr33kman blocked the editor and disabled talk page editing. No action needed. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite reversions by various editors, the IP continues to tag its own talk page for deletion with the rationale "banned user". It needs protection now. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh..resolved. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was basically going to say that, and even mark it as resolved. Have done so above. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for archival

This thread is long overdue for archival. The last post was made on 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC). It has been one month, one week and four days since any post has been made, and I've seen several threads archived long before the last post has been made that long ago. Can an uninvolved neutral user please archive the thread? Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 22:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon userspace

Resolved. Pages have been protected.

I ask that all of my userpages be semi-protected indefinitely (except for my talk).

These include:

• User:Mythdon, which is semi-protected until 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) by Barras. This would just merely change this already protected page to indefinite.
• User:Mythdon/Sandbox
• User:Mythdon/Talk header
• User:Mythdon/Talkpageheading, semi-protected by Juliancolton with an expiry time of 01:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC). Like User:Mythdon, this would be merely a duration change.
• User:Mythdon/Archives

My userpages have in the past been targeted by attacks and vandalism by proxies. Just as a precaution against further incidents, I ask for these indefinite protections. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, all mentioned pages are now semi protected as per your own request. Barras (talk) 20:24, 25 Oct

ober 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both you and Juliancolton for granting my request. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, User talk:Mythdon/Archive 2, a recently created archive. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - as requested. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please review whether User talk:Mythdon needs protected? —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you. If you want your talkpage protected, request it. If you don't, don't. I think this is pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I do want it protected to prevent libelous attacks. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 01:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection isnt meant to be pro-active. As an admin I wouldn't protect your usepage with its distinct lack of vandalism on it. And any attacks that were going to be made against you would just move to another page if we protected it proactively. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying protection would be counterproductive? I can take the decline. Thanks anyway for your efforts. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Move along. Now. It's marked "resolved" for a reason. Read up on the policies and then come back if you think your petty requests warrant an entire ANI thread. Oh, and see the latest thread presently. Goblin 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Bluegoblin7

Hello all!

diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5 (the edit summary), diff 5 diff 6

The behaviour of Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) is completely inacceptable. Violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPA. I request a block for him by an uninvolved admin. He as a former admin should know it better. As he stated on his talk page here he is not willing to stop this.

Thanks --Barras (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I already plan to block him for atleast a month on his next insult/attack. I know a couple other admins intend on blocking him for another such incident. People have been far too leniant on him in the past. As a matter of fact the only reason he currently isn't blocked is I didn't want to overrule the warnings other admins have given him today. He has been warned by multiple admins in the last 24 hours. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only been civil with him, and he insists on personal attacks. I might have blocked him for breaching WP:NPA, had I not been involved in the discussion myself.FSM ^Noodly? 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done 1 month block. This editor has been warned countless times, both on and off wiki. Enough is enough. fr33kman ^talk 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you be good enough to notify him personally that you've blocked him Fr33kman? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have done this onwiki a while ago, and on IRC within seconds/minutes of the block. fr33kman ^talk 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review

I do believe his behaviour isn't acceptable, and a block is the right thing. I do however also think the block is harsh seeing as PBP got away with a couple of weeks. I'd like to see the block reduced, as we can't deny he's a major asset to our mainspace editors. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Short blocks haven't been getting through to him. He has been blocked numerous times for the same thing. If anything the block should be longer. But I support a 1 month block. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Bluegoblin7 is a long time editor, former admin here and knows the policies very well. He stated that he is not willing to stop this. A two days block or one week doesn't help with this user. He should know it better. Block is imo ok. Barras (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting exercise to carry out with BG7 is to look at his contribs and search for the edit summary :|. The following is from his last 1,000 contributions in all namespaces & works in back-chronological order (now → then). Along with the ones Barras mentioned, there's this one. Click along a few Newer edit → links, and you find this. The previous :| comes in a set of three; this one is iffy; this one involves inferred swearing; and this one is a thinly veiled attack on a couple of users. The first one I found, however, here, is lighthearted, and I have no problem with it. (Endorse block.) —MC8 (b · t) 17:42, Monday November 2 2009 (UTC)

BG7 asked me in PM to extend it to indef. I think the edits he's been making are having a negative effect on both him and the wiki. I initially thought two weeks, but since he's been blocked and warned so often before, I feel a month is the minimum. fr33kman ^talk 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, some of his edits are indeed less than productive, but as a whole BG7 remains a useful and active editor. He's the only one clerking DYK, PGA, and PVGA, and writes many articles as well; I think it'd be quite a shame to lose his contributions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with JC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm back I'm more than willing to clerk those things :) FSM ^Noodly? 18:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, but we need all the help we can get still! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I will also take up my former role in DYK, GA, VGA. One thing we must remember is that one of the five pillars of WMF is that we have a code of conduct. Absolutely no one is above the five pillars. I consider BG7 a friend and I know he considers me a friend also, but a line must be drawn. If we don't act, then we basically state that anyone can do what they like. That is not the case. We have to be prepared to take action against any one who breaks the rules, no matter who they are or how much they contribute to the project. fr33kman ^talk 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm mentioned in this conversation, it's worth noting that I was blocked twice, whereas this is the sixth or seventh block for Goblin. Major difference Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BG7 statement

Bluegoblin7 has, without prompting, issued a statement about recent events. Since he is unable to post it in a more public place, I offer it's location here(diff). It does not affect the block, however it is nice to hear. fr33kman ^talk 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In light of and response to his statement, I'd like to officially propose reducing BG7's block. It's clear to me that he's learned his lesson, and whilst there are no excuses for incivility and failure to AGF, I don't think maintaining this block will prevent damage from the encyclopedia—indeed, I think the block itself is currently doing more harm that it's preventing. I think lowering the block to 48 hours on the condition that any further disruptive activity will result in an immediate re-instating of the previous block time is therefore appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A block of at least three weeks is warranted here. Goblin has been blocked at least five other times before; such behavior usually gets a perm block or a month-plus block. Plus, I hideously disapprove of the fact that he name-dropped my name (in diff #3 above) to insult another editor. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's understood that the sole purpose of a block is to reduce the damage to the encyclopedia by a particular user. Please explain how this block does so, considering BG7's recent statement. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I must say that that statement disturbed my greatly, and my heart goes out to BG7. I say we leave the block in place, and then let future events tell us if he has really learned his lesson. Regards.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordonrox24 has summed it up very well. I fully agree with him.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not open to reducing the block at this time. Despite the statement above, I am unsure that pressures of wiki life would not resurface soon after a lifting. BG7's blocks have been lifted quickly time and again, and we have returned to this situation time and again. The project needs a break, as does Jack. This is not to say I won't be open to a reduction later on, but right now, no. Sorry! fr33kman ^talk 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with fr33k, he has made such pleas (maybe not quite as detailed) after being blocked before and the blocks are quickly overturned, and the problem comes back. I do think he needs to let this one run its course. -DJSasso (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also have to agree with the both above me. I think the best for all to calm down is a break. One month isn't that long and after this he can reatart to be the great editor as he was (and still is) when I joined this wiki in February. Barras (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with JC. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with JC. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with JC too. Not sure what "the project needs a break" is all about. BG7's contributions to the mainspace are great and now we've been witness to his apology which is heartfelt and emotional, and now we (perhaps some of us more than others) can understand how difficult things can be in the circumstances BG7 has described, perhaps this could be one of the ultimate expressions of WP:AGF. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure you can guess my stance before I've even said it. BG7 is one of the most constructive users here, he continues to edit constructively, and a few little blips (okay, rather large blips) should not cloud this. I support reducing the block at the least. Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and looksy Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Barras and Fr33kman. Rules are rules, even if the user in question is usually a good contributor. FSM ^Noodly? 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rules are rules, even if the user in question is usually a good contributor." ← That is contradictory; if a user is a crucial member of the community, as BG7 is, and has understood the reasons for which they were blocked and apologized to involved parties then what's the point of blocking them? As I explained above, the purpose of a block is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. In this case, a recent statement issued by the editor in question promises us that the poor behavior which prompted a block will not be repeated. While obviously we can't be sure of anything, it seems obvious to me that the only option is, in the spirit of WP:AGF, to assume that his apology is genuine and he seriously intends to improve upon his demeanor. Personally, I think the solution here is clear. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

From what other users have said, he has issued these kind of statements in the past and has continued to carry out the same actions regardless. It is my opinion that if he is allowed back too soon, then the same thing will happen again. But to be honest, having been away for quite a while, I can't really comment with real authority on this issue. FSM ^Noodly? 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't feel he is as crucial as he seems to think he is, most of his edits are straight copies from en with a few words changed, while yes this is what alot of us do, I don't think we are losing much by blocking an editor who has caused more problems than done good on this wiki. How often must we go through all this circus around him before people realize he is not a net benifit to this wiki. AGF ran out on him after his 3rd or 4th block with the exact same excuse and sob story trying to explain them away. I am sorry but if the short blocks and promises in the past didn't work then it won't work this time. As he mentions below that blocks are not meant to be punitive they are meant to be preventative, and this one is. Its meant to prevent him from contining to be a disruption to this project. His disruption has by light years out paced his constructiveness. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DJ, I have a huge amount of respect for you, but saying he "has caused more problems than done good on this wiki" is simply wrong. BG7 has his issues, yes, but in no way do they outweigh the tremendous amount of useful stuff he has done. I spend most of my time here working with content, so I can attest to the fact that BG is indeed a key member of the encyclopedia who's written numerous VGAs and keeps processes such as DYK thriving. I'm not saying he shouldn't have to follow the same standards as everyone else, but I feel quite strongly on this matter. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We are on AN almost monthly discussing yet another set of NPA and CIVIL violations among others of his. At what point do we step back from being his friend and treat him like we would any other editor who has been blocked 5 times. We waste tremendous amounts of time on his actions and behaviour. Yes, he does alot of work, no doubt. But there comes a point where we have to do something or we give license to everyone else to do the same thing he does. We can't play favourites because we like his other contributions. He should be a man and own up to what he did and serve out the month then come back and proove he is reformed. His continued pleas are only strengthening my belief that he is no different than any other time. -DJSasso (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of 114.78.135.76

Resolved. User blocked.

The IP 114.78.135.76 has been constantly vandalising Wikipedia. He has been given a final warning, but vandalised the page 'Bushfire'. I am proposing a temporary block to stop him vandalising even more. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Take this to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress next time. :) --Bsadowski1 09:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Brian beat me to it.--  † CR₉₀  09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - but see above. --Barras (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

De-syops.

Hey guys. I was just looking at a user talk page archive and I found an admin that I have never seen before. User:Barliner. Per the edit counter he has made one edit in the last year, coming in December of 2008, and has not used his bit since April of 2008 well over a year ago. I think this all correct, let me know if I am wrong. I was wondering since it has been over a year since his last logged action, should we be putting him up for de-syops?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think so.--  † CR₉₀  00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can ask for a desysop on WP:RFA. fr33kman ^talk 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would of course try to make contact with him to see if he has any plans on returning. Yeah I know I can, but the rules on de-syops are so vague that I wasn't sure. "A long time" can mean different things, although I think one year is standard at SEWP.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well over a year shows a lack of current knowledge of the project in-and-of-itself. fr33kman ^talk 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can vouch for that. I've been gone for three months tops, and I'm already out of the loop as to what is happening. I will look into adding something at RFA.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always been one to support removing inactive administrators. There is also one other that has been inactive for over a year. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy

Since we now have a policy for desysoping inactive admins, Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Barliner is useless now it would seem. The definition in the policy says that he is not inactive. This should probably be closed since it goes against our policy and process as set out in Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Either way (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While I am not against the policy. How did we move from suggesting it to it being implemented in less than 24 hours. That is not good at all. In fact it was only about 14 hours. Which is the overnight period in North America. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion, seeing as that was started before the policy was enacted, maybe it should have the old rules?--  † CR₉₀  05:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. A policy is a policy; I don't think there's a reason to desysop Barliner against it. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Work for us

We haven't yet completed the Convert template imports. Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert has ~900 while on en, it has 3032. Lots of work to do. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you link it here, where we can find a list which needs to be imported? --Barras (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

en:Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert. Some have been done, some not. The first 250 have been done; so I suggest you start from here. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 13:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alot of them may be redirects. Which is why I stopped important and was waiting to see actualy missing something on a page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not - redirects are italicized. Only few are redirects. Pmlineditor ∞ 14:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They are redirects in another sense. Some of their code is changed to point to another subpage. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not to say others shouldn't do it. I just personally find it a waste of time until you find an error with one missing. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Juliancolton/Convert subtemplates is a list of all of enwiki's convert sub-templates. There are quite a few redlinks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)