Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 30

Christianrocker90 User page and Administrator Conduct

Resolved.

So this is a request for comment on two separate things: First off Kennedy has brought up an explicit concern that Christianrocker90's user page is a violation of his probation as decided upon by the community here (and in his responses). While I do not believe this is the case I also think it is something that is fair to discuss, and it is better to do so here then on his talk page. For my part I don't particularly love his user page (to myspacy) I do not think it is to a point that it is abusive or out of line for user space.

I would also like to request comment on what I think is an extremely inappropriate attitude by Kennedy. His method of accusation and his comments seem far more biased to me then Christianrocker90's and reek of an assumption of bad faith and a specific grudge held that he will not let go and quite possibly distinct trolling to try and get Christianrocker to respond badly (and get reblocked). Jamesofur (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC) PS.If we want to separate these two discussions I'm more then fine with that Jamesofur (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy is right, one of the biggest reasons he was banned was his attention to non-article things such as being too myspacey as you put it, and by exhibiting a strong bias towards certain material. That being said. I don't have a problem with singular user boxes stating they are a christian etc. That is not a problem at all, however I think its the sheer overwhelming amount of it that is the problem. While I am not suggesting he is in violation, he should take a strong look at his userpage and reconsider if the way its set up is in his own best interests, since it was a pretty large factor in the ban in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE: I have altered my userpage and as such I changed Jame's link to link to the look he was originally referring to and you may access the current look through my sig.--  † CR₉₀  05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User page looks fine now. Kennedy was a little POINTY I think. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 10:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The userpage is too MySpacey for my liking. However, it isn't so bad that he should be indefed now. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what's wrong with the userpage. Prove it, I don't believe you. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I must come to my defense on the "myspacey" claim. Is it myspacey cause of the color and intricate coding? If so, then I'm not alone here. there are hundreds of users throughout the Wikipedias that have a userpage like mine (minus all the christian references.) So if I must change it, then so should every other user with an intricate userpage throughout the Wikipedias. But if it the personal stuff, I'm already working on that.--  † CR₉₀  22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a combination really, basically one of the big complaints before was that you focused to much much on making pretty userpages and the like and then one of the first things you did when you got back was do a whole new fancy userpage. While yes, you are more than able to have a page like that, you need to stop and consider how it makes you look. If you are trying to show and claiming that you changed and then one of the first things you do when you get back is one of the things people have a problem with before, kind of indicates maybe you didn't change on any of the other stuff either. You aren't breaking any rules for sure, but what you are doing is giving people ammunition to nail you to the wall the minute you slip up even the slightest. -DJSasso (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I worked on my userpage first really is cause of my name change and to update the look of my userpage with my toned down look. Ever since then I've tried my best to stick to the article space.--  † CR₉₀  04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock of BG7

Resolved. BG7 stays unblocked with a one-strike-rule

I have decided to unblock BG7 because he has given me personal assurances that his poor behaviour is permanately over. He has agreed to a "one-strike-rule" for his behaviour! Yours, as always, fr33kman ^talk 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversial, but I don't mind. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the lesson has been taken on board. ANY violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc., and it's back on, for longer. BG7 is well aware of that. fr33kman ^talk 20:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be controversial in my mind if someone else undid it, with no clean consensus of how long the block should be in the discussion (though there was consensus to HAVE a block) having the blocking admin decide when it had been long enough is perfectly acceptable :) Jamesofur (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't see any issues here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreement to a "one-strike rule" goes a long way towards allying concerns about repeat bad behavior, though I'd prefer that the exact guidelines on what that entails are stated before the unblock is made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect of Barack Obama

Resolved. Semi protected for a month

There needs to be one, especially after the vandalism that just happened to it. This is one of the most-viewed articles on any wikipedia, and we can't afford to ever have it vandalized Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done for 3 months. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a general note: In the case of Michael Jackson, most IP edits are good ones. I know a "popular artist" is probably not comparable to a US president, but we should still look to keep protection to a minimum. Most IPs don't come to vandalize. --Eptalon (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with this, the reason I protected the article in question is because it has received a large amount of vandalism from IPs and new users, not because it is one of the "most-viewed" articles. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case an IP or new editor that wishes for changes to me made can request a change on the article's Talk page.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'Tis true. Also, the unfortunate fact is that the IPs who come to vandalize ruin it for the other IPs, if not the whole project Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

3 months is a bit steep isn't it? I'd agree with 1 month, even 2 at a push, but three? Come on, sort it out. Just block the IPs involved, it's not /that/ much vandalism. Goblin 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

I do have to agree that three months is a bit steep for only a few vandals...--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've lowered it to one month. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Max!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that on enwp and frwp, it's an indef semi-pro, and it had a full lock during the 2008 election. I'm honestly for the same perameters here, indef semi-lock, and full-lock whenever there's an election. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

En has a significantly larger number of vandals than we do. It would be a real shame to have to indef-protect an article just because some IP's decided to mess around. It's best to just block the IP's that are destructive and allow the ones that help us to continue to help us.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We're not any other wiki - and you only mention two out of hundreds of WMF wikis, lots of which will have articles about Obama. Let it rest, Max has spoken. Goblin 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

Request

Could an administrator please fully protect my user page? There's no need for it to ever be edited. Thanks, @Kate (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 08:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Quicker response than I expected, thank you. :) @Kate (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering, but could an admin also create user talk:Katerenka/Archive 1? Thanks. @Kate (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No need. The pae you linked to is not protected. --Barras (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done as the page is caught by the blacklist. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. :) @Kate (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yotcmdr to Yottie after rename

Hi there all! Just that all know, I renamed now Yotcmdr to Yottie per his own request. Just that no one is confused that this account performs now admin actions. --Barras (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Zeta Alpha

Resolved. Thread deals with a different language Wikipedia. —MC8 (b · t) 01:06, Monday December 7 2009 (UTC) 01:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please fully protect the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Zeta_Alpha

There has been considerable acts of vandalism on this page and I have had to restore it back to its original state on several occasions now. In addition, I would also like for the following media to be fully protected as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gamma-Shield.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GZA-Order-of-the-Pyramid.jpg

Thanks in advance, carlos.lopez6 — This unsigned comment was added by Carlos.lopez6 (talk • changes).

You need to see this page on the Main Wikipedia as we have no say-so over there. Thanks.--  † CR₉₀  09:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AntiAbuseBot

I was wondering if I could operate an IRC bot logged in as me and operated by me only, that helps to block persistant block evading vandalisers that you see sometimes here at Simple. It's using the en:User:AntiAbuseBot open source code. It will be logged on IRC as the nick MrFishBot.

1. It will be logged in through the MediaWiki API as me only.
2. It's triggers/commands can only be used by ME. Nobody else.
3. It is supervised by me and when I'm online at home. Not in a public computer.
4. You'll notice it in action when there's a (bot) thing at the end of the reason. The default reason will be [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism]].
5. Default block lengths; Usernames: indefinite; IPs: 31 hours

Things it cannot and will not do:

1. Delete anything.
2. Block IP ranges.

Sorry for asking but I thought it would be a responsible thing to do. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The code for AntiAbuseBot is not open. Are you able to get the code? If so, the community in the past has not been too keen on having an automatic admin-level bot on simple.wikipedia. What experience do you have with running bots? EhJJ^TALK 03:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe he already has the code from ChrisG and has made test edits on his wiki with it. Possibly one test on here with it as well? He would have to point to the block. James (T|C) 03:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The test block (ONE) was blocking P Dog (talk · contribs · count). I changed it manually to enable email and talk page access. I then changed the PHP source to suit what Simple Wikipedia does when blocking. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 04:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If its done under his own account and its edits are manually approved prior to actually blocking then I have no problem with it as any incorrect blocks would fall on him. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the account is operated on, however I would only support having such a bot around if all blocks are checked, double-checked and triple-checked MANUALLY before blocking - i.e. not a simple case of "Oh, it wants to block, i'll press 'Yes'" or whatever. Ta, Goblin 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Yeah that was the main part of my point. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Like Djsasso said, if you make a mistake with it, it will then be your fault and not the bot's or anyone else's. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah its not really a bot if you are doing it on your account and you are manually approving the blocks, its really just a script like huggle or whatever. So as long as you take responsibility for any mistakes you make then all is cool in my opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Djsasso. As long as you do the blocks on your main account, you are responsible for the blocks. If you do a lot of mistakes you have to life with the result. If you do a good job, I have no worries. --Barras (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that some bad usernames registered just when I was ready. I blocked it with the AntiAbuseBot. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 07:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC) PS. I complied with the above. It was obvious the usernames were bad, and also #4 I did.

Timothy Taylor

Resolved. No article exists on this wiki. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that Timothy Taylor's article not be redirected to his wife's page: 'Lady Helen Taylor'. This is double redirected with the link of his name in her article as her spouse.

Neither article exists on this wiki that I can find. Are you sure you don't mean english wikipedia? -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy violation

Resolved. Sections retained; no action taken. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK is a process for promoting mainspace articles to the main page. I've removed this policy violation twice already and placed a note on the talk. I've asked for BG7 to get consensus to reinsert the policy violation. This was an administrative call. Since BG7 and I have had prior involvement, I am averse to using the block tool, or issuing a warning for disruptive editing/policy violations. Please may an uninvolved administrator look into this. Many thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not violating any policy and is no different to what many other wikis do for similar occasions/events. April Fools at EN springs to mind. It's not project space and thus not governed by the neutrality guidelines. Furthermore, the section has been there for months and therefore consensus is required to remove, not restore. Goblin 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

 (change conflict)  What is bad with this section? It just keeps hooks for special events like cristmas/eastern. This is good. So we have for these special dates hooks that fit very well and shows on our main page that we think not only til in two hours. I see no reason to remove it. --Barras (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't see anything incorrect with giving preference to the Christian holiday, special consideration to promoting it to the main page. Therein lies our neutrality issue. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong in having 5 hooks for christmas on the main page in the cristmas time? --Barras (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Any other holiday is more than welcome to be added to the section if required. No other event (except November 5th) has been added as no hooks have been nominted. The hooks follow the exact same criteria and remain for the exact same period of time. They are not being given preference over anything, and if the queue isn't full then other hooks will be added in. This is a complete no brainer. Goblin 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

It gives undue weight to Christian religion on our main page. We would give preference to other subjects as well, and this is equally wrong. We are supposed to be neutral in our coverage. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, featured articles should be removed, as they are giving an undue weight to a certain topic for a day. Re-think that argument if I were you. Goblin 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

FA's are chosen due to the merit of the written article, not the subject. On the DYK section, we give special preference to the subject. My arguement is still valid. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, NPOV relates to presenting the facts in a biased manner. Since any holiday is able to be in the DYK then its not a violation. Especially not when its tied to being that day. Its no different than the "On this day" section on most wikis. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So making Bobby Robson the featured article the day after he died is perfectly allowed yet having Christmas hooks is not? There's no difference, if we don't let Christmas be featured we should not let any DYKs or articles be featured as they are all promoting a POV by your argument. It's only for five days, it's not forever and not the end of the world. Goblin 19:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

(E/C*2)I have to agree with BG7 on this one. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I understand. There is no consensus that this is a policy violation. Thank you all for the explanation and the participation. BG7, thank you for your incredible patience. Warm regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party but: I think I understand where your coming from on the thought process Scream and I appreciate that. I think in this case we can take our usual "follow en if we don't have a policy" stance. This is a commons strategy to link the main page with certain days which I think brings it a little freshness. That being said, we shouldn't be giving special rights to a specific holiday, in my opinion we should greatly encourage people to try and get a set (or even just 1 or 2) DYK's, articles, etc that can be shown on the main page when they relate. It's a great way to give people ideas on what to write. Jamesofur (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Yes we might give undue weight to a "Christian" holiday, on (or around) that holiday. If you look at that argument more closely, there is nothing wrong with having a Wicca-feast related hook on a Wicca-feast day, or an Islam-related one on an Islamic holiday. If you look at it more closely though, you will find out that most non-Christian-religion-related articles are in a very poor state (I'd go even as far as saying that the "Eastern Orthodox"-related articles are in such a state). DYK that DYK topics can only be picked form content that is actually there? --Eptalon (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to the party as was Jamesofur but I fell I must say, while Christmas is celebrated by Christians it's also celebrated by many non-Christians. The secularization of the holiday is seen in Santa Claus.--  † CR₉₀  13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was actually Saint Nicholas of Myra, whose official feast is celebrated December 6; but to who (at least in Europe), some Pagan elements were mixed, but that is definitely off-topic here. All i was trying to say (above) was that if we included (non-Christian) Feasts, we could satisfy the "NPOV" dispute raised by NonVocalScream.--Eptalon (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mythdon/Archives

Resolved. No action needed to be taken. —MC8 (b · t) 11:15, Sunday December 13 2009 (UTC)

Can an administrator please protect this redirect? It's protection settings have been moved to a new title at User:Mythdon/Archives/Index making this a redirect. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's protection settings moved when you moved it. It's still protected. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 03:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 03:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tharnton...

Hello all,

following a post by an IP, I unprotected User talk:Tharnton345, and I left a respective message there. Tharnton was community banned earlier this year, I think what he wanted to suggest is that we do a review, much like we did with CR90. Anyway, we can lose little as it is; if it gets out of hand, we simply re-protect that page. FYI, the user does not have an email address set. --Eptalon (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

After a prolific history of cross-wiki sockpuppetry, only halted by long-term IP blocks, my answer is a unequivocal "no". I think en:WP:COMPETENCE also applies here too. My personal opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:VIP

Hey guys. There has been a request at VIP for a few days now. It is probably stale, but you might wanna look at it. Thanks! --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Protect.

Resolved. Request declined. — μ 19:33, Saturday December 19 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. Would anybody be willing to semi-protect the Sex article. I feel there is no need for any account that is not autoconfirmed to be editing that article, as all IPs and new accounts that have edited that article have been editing in bad faith.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

While another admin is more then welcome to disagree I'm going to say  Not done for now, there hasn't been a whole lot of activity recently and at least in my mind reverting every couple weeks isn't as bad as locking down a page. Please let us know though if it gets bad and someone doesn't realize. James (T|C) 10:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I can share this opinion. Given the level of activity, protection is probably not needed at the moment.--Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Flood flag

bugzilla:21571 is assigned, this means that all admins can grant flood flag to other users. Be careful when doing this and don't forget to remove the flag when the flood is done. --Barras (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nameless User has the flood flag currently. Please remove it when he stops flooding. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The agreement was that the admin who gives it must watch the editors edits and remove it when they are done. You are not supposed to add it and leave. Nor should it be given for the sorts of edits he is making. It should only be for repetitive minor tasks like stub sorting etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection of the Brittany Murphy article

Hey, What do you think of protecting the Brittany Murphy article. TMZ has said that she has died, and somebody has already changed the article to say that. I think it best we protect the article, wait for a decent source to confirm, and then update the article.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did that, semi-protection, for 3 days. --Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a bunch of sources, but they all seem to quote TMZ. ···Katerenka (討論) 20:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm thinking we should wait until we get something really really solid. I don't want to sound to conservative, but I wouldn't be surprised if TMZ creates all this hype, and then she comes on TV tomorrow to let us all know she is still around. I think it's better to wait and get it right, then to rush and to hurt the dignity of a real person.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, this could turn into a BLP nightmare. If she's actually dead, something reliable will eventually surface; no need to rush. ···Katerenka (討論) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I semi-protected it, meaning any auto-confirmed user can edit; FYI, the article is around since 2005, so must have been among the first on this WP... --Eptalon (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Griffenofwhales

Resolved. Already blocked. Sorry. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Griffenofwhales (talk · contribs)

Could somebody please block Griffenofwhales as an imposter and attacker of Griffinofwales (talk · contribs)? Thanks. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 23:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He's already blocked, but thank you for the info. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

William S. Burroughs

Resolved. Wrong interwikis on fywiki, should now be sorted. - tholly 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted THREE different bot-produced links (all from different bots) in the last 24 hours, that equate 20th century author William S. Burroughs with 17th century religious leader Jeremiah Burroughs, on another Wikipedia. They are NOT the same person; how these bots got the notion they were is beyond my comprehension. Someone please put a stop to it. Zephyrad (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They will probably be doing this because another iw link on that article is wrong (linking to Jeremiah Burroughs), or the wrong French article links to here. I'll have a look. - tholly ^--Talk-- 12:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, misread - it's fywiki not frwiki. - tholly ^--Talk-- 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - Someone had added the en:William S. Burroughs interwiki to the article on fywiki, and then bots added it everywhere else. I've now linked the fy article (which is actually blank, but that's not our problem) to en:Jeremiah Burroughs, and unlinked the William S. Burroughs articles on en, fr, es, and de wikis so they don't point to the fy article. So, we should stop getting the wrong links. - tholly ^--Talk-- 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Zephyrad (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Barliner

Resolved. right removed by Barras ^talk

Hello,

It has now been a full year since Barliner made a change here at simple, meaning he is now considered inactive per our new policy for de-syopsing. Per this rule I also believe that a RFDA is not needed, and a crat can regretfully removed his flag at the 'crats leisure. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 13:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 removed --Barras ^talk 13:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Has Barliner been informed? Goblin 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

There is a note on his talkpage. I'm not sure how else we can contact him.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Try email or crosswiki. If they both fail, TP note will suffice. Goblin 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

I'll pop him an e-mail using his userpage link. He looks even less active on EN. We'll see what happens I guess.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just btw, if his enwp userpage is correct (at least he added the userbox himself), so the user is over 109 years old. If this is true (dunno, it could be just a joke), so I think he will not read any mails nor edit here in the future... I removed his right and left a note on his talk page. (Removing per policy allowed). So I'd say this thread can be closed here. Regards --Barras ^talk 16:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a joke. Policy or no policy, it's courtesy to contact them via a means that they use (i.e. email, other active wiki) before removing the rights. They may still not reply, but posting on the talk page of a wiki they don't visit is not showing the user any courtesy or respect. Goblin 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

• I have sent an e-mail. If you like I can post a note if or when I receive a response.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

9876543210editor

Resolved. Found out that it has already been blocked by PeterSymonds. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 22:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• 9876543210editor (talk · contribs)

This username appears to be an attack on Pmlineditor (talk · contribs) based on the "editor" part of the username. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 22:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's just some troll. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 22:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Central United Church Sarnia

Resolved.

• Central United Church Sarnia (talk · contribs)

Username is a promotional username because it is named after a website that the user asserts to have. Can an administrator please block this user as a violation of the username policy? —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I will User;MythDon but Greg needs to recreat an acocount .--Huik01 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Only an admin can block, Huik01. :p --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Which I've  Done. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Central United Church Sarnia. There now appears to be sockpuppetry going on. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 23:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Central United Church‎ (talk · contribs) is another violation. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 23:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please slow down Mythdon. This is not a case of abusive sockpuppetry. As Jamesofur said they are confused about the policies for usernames. A checkuser is NOT needed. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon: I know you mean well but I'm going to ask you to step back for a moment, there are multiple administrators trying to help the user (and users) understand the concerns of the community. As you can see on the new users talk page Bsadowski1 is trying to explain to them the problem with the username and hopefully it will work out well. To many chefs in the kitchen can cause problems and to many edits "crying wolf" can make it so that less people will look when something happens down the road. I do appreciate your concern and assistance but I encourage you to remember that when you are able to see multiple administrators editing messages on this board tend to be counterproductive and just lead to more drama. James (T|C) 23:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentence issue

Hi, i think a sentence at the Wikipedia:Proposed good articles need to be changed as it doesnt really tell how to nominate properly. I needed to go back and see how other people have done it to see what i needed to do. Is this sentence im referring to:"To propose an article for Good Article Status, just add it to the top of the list using a ===Level Three=== heading. Proposals run for three weeks, and after this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion. This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc." Its not really telling the correct way of nominating an article in my opinion. More suggestions and input on this issue thanks.--Sinbad (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit. I hope it helps now. --Barras ^talk 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was very helpful. And i think it will help other people in the future to.:)--Sinbad (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mythdon/Statistics/RFD

Resolved. Done by Bsadowski1. EhJJ^TALK 03:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please protect User:Mythdon/Statistics/RFD as a potential target by attack users. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 05:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 05:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User User:Huik01

Resolved. user indef'd by Juliancolton. Nothing more to do here unless he makes an unblock request. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User User:Huik01 has in my opinion stepped over a certain line of how to behave on Simple Wikipedia. With many quite rude comments to Mythdon and other users who is just trying to help the user. Something needs to be done. Need more input from other users to.--Sinbad (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, but additional comments are welcome. ···Katerenka (討論) 23:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion he will just come back in24hours time and do the same things as before again. semi-vandalism and rude comments will follow. i say put a weeks ban on the account and warn the account properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinbad (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The behavior has got to stop. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 23:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think talk page protection is warranted for comments like this. Also, please see this warning I gave Huik01 prior to/around the block. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I bring this to everyone's immediate attention. A personal attack made after I warned the user against such comments. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We know Mythdon, we are watching it on IRC. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual we tend to try and take it in steps, if he continues to be a problem after his time is up he will quickly be reblocked for longer up to and including indefinitely if it continues. Concerning your comment Mythdon administrators are here and looking into the situation. I do appreciate both of you trying to bring this to our attention and you are right in that the behavior exhibited is a distraction.James (T|C) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He claims to have retired on his user page. TwoBitTitan (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Then i guess this matter is solved as of now. Until further incidents or improvements of behaviour from the reported user.--Sinbad (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it might be a false ruse to throw people off balance and make them stop watching him. I would say that if he does come back, and he continues to behave in the manner that he is behaving in, then we should go straight to an indef block because he doesn't seem to have the maturity to appropriately work on the Simple English Wikipedia correctly. Razorflame 01:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He might possibly think that, but I watch the talk pages of users that I block, so he would be mistaken. ;) As James said, if he continues to misbehave, blocks will get longer and end up at indefinite. ···Katerenka (討論) 01:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was called an asshole by Huik01 only moments after he was unblocked on my talk page today. which was removed by another user who talked to Huik01 about it. I guess he isnt showing mutch improvement so far. Check my talk page log for more on it. I cant not tolerate someone making remarks like that to me on my talk page for so mutch longer.--Sinbad (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the message from Huik01, "or was it just all a ploy to ban me for good? at that time u considering me a sockpuppet of TWOBITTIAN? WTF??? nothing related to that asshole."--Sinbad (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I also just now noticed that he also reported me for vandalism stating:He shouldnt have Operational Priveledges due to Reporting me for vandalism. I say a new block is in orderm, im requesting it for you to evaluate.--Sinbad (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think he was calling you an asshole... I think he was calling twobittan one. Still not a reasonable response though.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Gordon on this, it looks to me that he is calling TwobitTitan an ass not you. That is of course not to say that the language is appropriate. James (T|C) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK may so be. But its still just as bad and should result in some sort of block. He still also reported me for vandalism in a very childish way proving he hasnt learned anything from being blocked. Im not saying he should be indefinite blocked but atleast blocked for a week or several days so he can learn wikipedia rules and calm down.--Sinbad (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And its not a clear cut case who he is calling an asshole so that also points to a block for this user.--Sinbad (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am ofcourse still willing to give him one more chance of behaving good before blocking if everyone finds that to be a better solution.--Sinbad (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For those who want the remark diff (here). For those who want the VIP diff (here). I've also given Huik01 my final warning. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 19:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Having given Huik01 my final warning, I'll be keeping a close eye on them. So, if they do anything that amounts (or even gets close to touching) to the behavior that got them blocked, then be prepared to see a report from me. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- I have removed the final warning Mythdon put up. The issue was already discussed on that page hours before and giving him a threatening "final warning" about something after this has been done does nothing to help the matter and can greatly worsen it. I of course encourage you to report any problems you see but PLEASE PLEASE look at the discussions going on before you make new problems or warnings yourself. I (as well as other admins I am sure) will also be watching him but we would like to KEEP editors if at all possible, if he continues he will be reblocked I said that before and I say it again. James (T|C) 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont personally see any reason for a deletion of the message. but i dont care either that it was removed. I think we will have to wait and see what Huik01s next move is and if the users behaviour has improved. I htink Mythdon ment to say that his last messages about and to me personally was not ok and for that i thank him,even tough the message was removed.--Sinbad (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Huik01 has now been blocked indefinitly and i think that is for the best. So i thank Juliancolton for that,and if Huik01 can come up with a good reason to why he/she should be allowed back i wish the user all luck.--Sinbad (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Purposal: Bringing the Guestbook to Simple English Wikipedia

Resolved. Not an administrative issue. User has been blocked. Page has been deleted. EhJJ^TALK 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not have seen this in one of the other Simple English projects. For those that haven't, the purpose of this is to grow activity and participation on the project. If you are a regular user, or just stopping by, you can feel free to add your name!

To go to the page, click this link. TwoBitTitan 16:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Goblin 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Sounds like a bad idea, sorry. Majorly talk 17:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mythdon/Userboxes/Non-content

Resolved. done by Barras ^talk

Please protect the page as a potential target for attacks. Thank you. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Barras ^talk 20:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Deathbunny (username)

Resolved.

• Deathbunny (talk · contribs)

I find the above username inappropriate because of the word "death" and "bunny" combined. The combination of the word "death" and "bunny" seem to amount to the meaning of a bunny that murders. I find it an offensive username. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the name offends you, but it doesn't violate policy in any way. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, do any of these usernames bother you as well? ···Katerenka (討論) 07:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on those names yet, but the fact that "death" is followed by "bunny" indicates the meaning of a bunny that murders. Either it's just me, or this name has that meaning. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's just you. Deathbunny has had that username since 2006 and no one has said anything until now. The username policy is similar to real world contract and criminal law in that you apply a reasonable person standard to them. Would a reasonable person be offended by "deathbunny"? Probably not. You may just be a bit more sensitive to these things than most. ···Katerenka (討論) 07:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was really against the username policy, it would of been blocked on its home wiki, which is English. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 07:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... First of all, death does not equal murder. Second, the name is meant to be somewhat ironic because bunnies are usually assumed to be prey animals. The inspiration for the name--one I've been using for a long time, actually--is the white rabbit in Monty Python. The one who lives peacefully until attacked. Third, the name is also meant to create irony in other ways because--in general--people usually associate "death" with the males and "bunny" with females. By using the two conflicting terms, people usually have to argue with my facts first rather than assuming a gender and disregarding what I have to say. Finally, I--like the bunny in the movie--have no desire to hurt anyone but do willingly defend myself when subject to assault. I have no criminal convictions for violence and no tendency toward violence. Thank you. Deathbunny (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect of Sock

Resolved. Not enough recent vandalism to justify protection. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has been IP vandalized at least once or twice or week all this month. Among this that stayed on the page for weeks. Request a semi-protect of at least six months. Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A semi-protection would be extremely pointless - no more bad edits than normal this month, then none at all since September. But i'm not an admin, so they can have the final say. Goblin 21:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

It's not needed at the moment. If it was vandalised every 2 days or something, then yeah it might be semi'ed. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Heck I don't semi protect until something is vandalized 5 or more times in a single day...nevermind a couple times a month. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Current events

Resolved. ···Katerenka (討論) 09:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi i thought it was time that also Simple Wikipedia had a portal for Current events. So i started one but please help improving it and i also think it would be nice it the portal got a place on Simple Wikipedias front page, something in style with the the same portal on Wikipedia.--Sinbad (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So that we can keep some sort of updated version everyday from now on, I think it would be in the best interest of Simple Wikipedias future to follow all other Wikipedias who also has this current event portal.--Sinbad (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that such a thing would be useful at the moment. We do not have enough active editors to support processes such as VGA, GA and DYK as it is, and adding in yet more will only become even more neglected. Furthermore, we do not yet have a Portal namespace here, nor do we allow Portals - as a result I have tagged it for deletion. You may however move it to your userspace and run a trial there to see if it would be worthwhile. Regards, Goblin 13:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

I agree with Goblin. We have troubles to keep up WP:PVGA, WP:PGA and WP:DYK. We first need more helping hands in the already existing areas before we create more work. Our userbase isn't that big as enwiki's. We don't have the power to handle another Portal. --Barras ^talk 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and articles like 2009 Espoo shopping mall shooting‎ are no good either. Majorly talk 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK good to know. And i in one way agree with you all. However an article like 2009 Espoo shopping mall shooting‎ is OK as long as their is people interested in the article. It doesnt need instant changes but atleast changes after the whole scenario has played out in full. Simple wikipedia is small, but not that small.cheers--Sinbad (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there are more pressing topics, such as history and the sciences, that we should (collectively) be focusing our attentions on, rather than documenting relatively minor current events. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(<-) IMO, a "current events" could be feasible; as it is now though, the "current" DYK are updated about twice a month. If that's current enough, then fine. BTW: Are there any Wikinews editors willing to contribute (in Simpler English, ofc)? - Personally I am not sure that by ourselves we have the manpower; we are struggling with DYK as it is. --Eptalon (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eptalon, that's precisely the arguments given above - we don't have the man power to sustain any processes, and adding another would likely see the downfall of the lot. DYK should, in theory, be updated every 5 days, however a lack of editors often sees that slip dramatically. The number of promoted GAs and VGAs is dropping due to a lack of input or work done on articles. There are other reasons besides. Adding any form of current news that requires an even more intensive update than the processes already supported would, at this point in time, only be a bad thing. Ta, Goblin 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

ONaNcle

Resolved. User given short-term block. Admins will keep an eye but report again if behaviour continues. EhJJ^TALK 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating a thread here as i'm getting a little worried about the above user and the way that things are going on the Wikipedia.

It seems to me that ONaNcle is coming across fairly offensive and picking fault with everything, even when there is none to find. His views are also fairly radical and I feel that they are detrimental to the wiki - however, that's not why i'm posting this because that would be unfair to control someones beliefs.

I'm struggling to phrase what I mean, but I think others will know what I am on about.

Regards,

Goblin 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

Please be more specific and give some diffs... if you think some of them are both offensive and non-constructive, I do agree you ask any oversighter to remove them even from historic. ONaNcle (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i'm diff gathering. Or, I could just point everyone to James' RfCU. That works. And no, an oversighter wouldn't remove such comments - please read up on what can and can't be oversighted. Goblin 17:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

From an offensive point of view everything in a recent vote could be oversighted indeed... I'm not so often offensive but I obviously lack diplomacy while arguing not in my native language (French)... anyway, I was stupid to hope my two main ideas could be understood properly. ONaNcle (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, after watching this user for the past couple of weeks, I am confident when I say that I don't think that this user is mature enough to edit the Simple English Wikipedia. Starting a form of the Guestbook that we used to have on his talk page shows that he does not cope with the fact that Wikipedia is not a friend gathering and meeting place, but rather, a place where people volunteer to build an encyclopedia. His vote on James's RFCU was also immature at the time, and overall, I don't think that this user is a good match with Wikipedia. Razorflame 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

answering Razor hereONaNcle (talk)

So Simple is now banning people because English is not their first language? Seems rather self-defeating! Soup Dish (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Which thread are you reading? Certainly not this one. Majorly talk 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd. ONaNcle's first language is French and his lack of English language nativeness seemed to throw up some problems at the recent Request for Checkuser(ship) mentioned. It appeared apparent over there that he was opposing because he didn't feel comfortable enough to support but thought, albeit mistakenly, that 25 votes were needed in total, rather than 25 support votes. It's an issue that has come up before and could easily be misunderstood by a non-native English speaker. His subsequent frustration is understandable Soup Dish (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me it sounded like he had encountered this at the French Wikipedia (which would have the exact same policy). Although the language barrier may have originally contributed to the problem, it is not the primary cause of the problem (which IMO is his attitude). Griffinofwales (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more concerned about his use of the flood flag Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The first time ever I was flooding I was obviously not doing it in an appropriate way and I apologize about it ; That's why my first edit inside Main during 2010 will be done only after an admin will give this flag again ; there is indeed a lot of self-reversal work left since PeterSymonds has closed the vote in Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Category:American movie actors. ONaNcle (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I feel our main problem is the language barrier. I think he has trouble communicating clearly to us, and that understandably causes tension and unneeded stress.--Gordonrox24 | ^{Happy Holidays!} 17:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It was the first time today, without asking for it, that I was editing under this unsuited for me flood flag; the admin who took that decision removed it very soon; even if sometimes I'm doing quickly cosmetic changes, this is not during a lapse of time enough to get this flag. ONaNcle (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the flood flag because you were changing "websitess" to "websites" on a bunch of articles. As I was watching your edits, since they were hidden from recent changed, I removed it when I noticed you taking it upon yourself to act on a "consensus" you believed existed. ···Katerenka (討論) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this time I've fully understood about the flood tag ; I can stay all day long with this tag because I've got a lot of self-reversal to do. Tks for your help. (don't worry I'll do nothing else...) ONaNcle (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Protection

Administrators,

I draw to your discussion the indefinite semi-protection of Nigger by Katerenka and the ensuing discussion here.

In summary, Purplebackpack saw fit to request a semi-protection after a raft of vandalism from one user in one day. Brian protected it for a few hours during that day, however Kate came along and added an indef semi- for no apparent reason.

As you should all know, the Protect tool is meant to be preventative, not punative, and this action was clearly unsolicited when the amount of vandalism points only to a block of the IP editor involved.

As discussing at that page has brought nothing up, i'm bringing it to the wider administrator community for further discussion and action.

I maintain my views set out in the discussion that it was an inappopriate protection and misuseage of the Administrator tools.

Regards,

Goblin 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Little clarification here: I requested indef semi-protection on the condition of the page being IP Vandalized again after the 24-hour semi-protection had expired. Within hours of the 24-hour lock expiring, it was vandalized, and Kat indef semi-protected it. Why I want this semi-locked: This is a very controversial, and most of the vandalism on the page is the very worst kind--hate speech. We need to PREVENT hate speech from occurring on this Wikipedia, and semi-locking Nigger is a way to do so. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All vandalism is of the worse kind, and hate speech has occured on articles where you wouldn't expect it. It's not the only controversial topic on the wiki either; i'm still to hear something that says it should be indef semi'd. If the page is recieving multiple hits a day, every day, only then would an indef semi be a feasible, preventative option. Until then it is only punative and thus why I am objecting to it. One instance of vandalism after an unprotection also does not constitute going straight to indef either. None of what you've said has helped a case for protection, imo. Goblin 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Guys, we are here to build a wiki. This discussion is going nowhere. Leaving the page semi-protected doesn't harm anyone if you protect it for a short while, but I agree that a protection should not be preventative, but punative. I think a 24 hour protection is enough. If there is more vandalism to that page, a longer time will be suitable, but we can't indefinitely stop ips from editing articles. Yottie ^=talk= 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa...punative not preventive? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Purple: An indefinite protection is nearly always punative - meaning that it punishes editors and is a bad thing - rather than preventative. Unless it's multiple editors and multiple instances blocking should be used instead as it has less collateral damage. This is also why we don't indef block dynamic IP addresses. At Yot, I fail to see how that comment is actually particularly helpful? We are going somewhere with this, and this is about "building a wiki" - we could easily have lost a constructive editor wanting to expand the Nigger page and make it better... or "build a wiki". Goblin 17:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

All I was doing was wondering if Yot got his P's mixed up. He said above that blocks should be punative, and I assumed that wasn't what he meant Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
To add to what i've said, one IP edit after protection expiry is most certainly not a semi-indef. Block the IP, if it continues then go a couple of hours. Brian's protect was a "good" one as there were four different IPs involved. Also, prior to today there was no edits since November, further backing up a "no protect". Fix it nao plz kthx. Goblin 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

Have to agree with BG here. In the case of single editors pages should not be protected. Instead users should be blocked. I believe there is even a policy somewhere stating it. Protection as BG said is not supposed to be proactive, only reactive. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got my 'P's mixed up :) Yottie ^=talk= 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree on this one. We want to have the least protection we possibly can and this deffinitly doesn't rise up to my standards. You'll notice there is actually already a comment on the page you see when you edit ( not sure who placed it) which says if you vandalize that page you will be blocked without warning. I've done it before and like i do with any hate speech I'll do it again. Unless someone is ip hopping and attacking it over and ber after block I'm not even sure I'd do short term but very short term isn't to bad overall. James (T|C) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that, but it's good that it's there. Would it be possible to have it in big letters/template box at the top? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(<--) FYI: Protection changed; 1 week semi-protection. When it expires, I propose we handle this the same we do the other pages, that is: block the offenders, protect page for short periods only. --Eptalon (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's slightly contradictory isn't it? "1 week semi-protection" then "short periods only" - 1 IP edit after the previous protect expired should result in no more than a day's protection, if any. I think all admins need to take time to re-read the protection policy, and then this thread needs a sensible expiry time injected into it. Any consensus formed on this page is for no protection at all, and I actually believe that considering it's already almost a day since the page was edited we can just remove it all together. *sigh* Goblin 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

I really don't see how this discussion is productive or necessary. "Indefinite" doesn't always mean "indefinite" and I had planned to revisit the issue within the next few days. I've no problem with any current administrator, ever, changing/undoing any logged action I may make. I trust that they have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart and hope that that same trust from them is extended to me. In the future, it might be best to simply approach me (or any other admin that you felt has acted "inappropriately") and calmly and rationally explain to them why you feel this way, and then wait a reasonable amount of time for a response before starting a thread about them on a noticeboard. I had no intention of leaving this semi-protected indefinitely which you would have found out had you waited for a response before you started this thread. Something to perhaps consider in the future. Cheers, ···Katerenka (討論) 08:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread is about rather a lot more than one action, and the fact that there is any protection at all is ridiculous, thus making this thread more than necessary. It is quite shocking that so many Administrators do not understand the protection policy and are protecting pages when they do not need it at all. You'll find that I did wait a reasonable amount of time on the article's talk before bringing it to the wider community, when I also mentioned it on your talk page - though I see you've now removed that. I have explained myself perfectly well here and (appear) to have the support of other editors in so far that any protection would, at this time, be entirely inappropriate and it should be removed. Also I note I would make this against any admin who acted the same way, as I did with the Main Page cascading on ST the other day. Fix it. Goblin 10:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Okay, whatever. ···Katerenka (討論) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Icek863

Resolved. User blocked as sockpuppet. EhJJ^TALK 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I do not try to start pontential controversies-in-making but Icek863 is making it hard for me to assume good faith in helping him. Could someone watch over him?  Kaltxì Na'vi!  22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to help him, but it appears he thinks I have a vendetta against him for some reason. FSM ^Noodly? 22:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have been accused (sort of) of being FSM. Tsk. Silly season. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave i'll stop just sorry okay? god. you report me to the administrators noticeboard because of my intimidating behaviour Na'Vi. Icek863 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

*ahem*--  † CR₉₀  22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To whom? Perhaps try to help rather than just criticise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and note this account has been indef blocked for WP:DUCK sockpuppetry CR90. BITE goes so far..... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Na'vi

Resolved. Majorly (talk · contribs) has blocked him indefintely. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The above user has confessed to me via e-mail that they are a sockpuppet of Pickbothmanlol. Please e-mail me for more information. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I should collect on the bets I made on IRC that he was a pickbothmanlol sock a few days back. -DJSasso (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He has been globally locked as well. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 23:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Santa Claus of the Future

Resolved. Said user blocked. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

It is really late and I am just heading off, but the few edits of User:Santa Claus of the Future concern me a little. If somebody would look into them I would be appreciative. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 05:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - all edits except on are vandalism and have been reverted. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks peter. I would have done it myself if I had any more than 60 seconds to get somewhere :P --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI--he has vandalized numerous times here since Pete's vand-4 warning. Block? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 already done James (T|C) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Main Page/Article X

Hi all. Due to the recent vandalism from Pickbothmanlol and the like (the tribble nonsense), I've applied semi-protection to all the "Main Page/Article X" redirects in an effort to stop his nonsense. This will not prevent the articles themselves from being edited by unregistered and non-autoconfirmed users (and is thus consistent with the protection policy), but will keep the redirects safe from anon/Pickbothmanlol vandalism so that visitors to our main page do not have to see the Tribble nonsense. As always, I welcome review of my actions. :) Cheers everyone, Lauryn Ashby (d) 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, this is another case where the abuse filter would disallow edits of such a variety, and would be more effective than protection. I know the community has decided that the abuse filter isn't needed here, but this might be a reason to revisit the issue once more. Cheers, Lauryn Ashby (d) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Katerenka → Lauryn Ashby after rename

Resolved. Everyone knows my real name now. ;) Lauryn Ashby (d) 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I just want to inform you that I renamed this user per own request. Don't be surprised that this account has the admin rights. -Barras ^talk 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

134.241.127.249

I'm thinking Bambi sockpuppet? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits are.. interesting, but it's the wrong geolocation for the IP. Bambi comes from AL not MA. Lauryn Ashby (d) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree! Bambifan101 is pro Disney and would not make these sorts of edits. fr33kman 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Raymondnivet

Raymondnivet (talk · contribs) He's back. He recreated another Ophelia Bretnacher-related article, a subject that had been the topic of a recent RFD where the result was delete (a.k.a. he recreated deleted content). Also, now he's going around to me, James and Lauryn accusing us of "persecution". He hasn't edited anything that didn't have to do with Ophelia Bretnacher. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively involved with the whole issue, so I'll have to recuse myself. I would, however, like a neutral admin to look into his recent behaviour. Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously It would be better for someone else to look at it, I would however like to make sure it is pointed out that I actually moved the article out of his User space myself (without his prompting) after he left a note complaining that I had never responded to him and saying he was leaving simple (I had been very busy with job interviews when he has posted and had honestly forgotten since then). I was satisfied it was different enough and notable enough to move out so I did so. Others are obviously free to disagree and if the consensus is delete (or even speedy delete) so be it. James (T C) 00:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted on IRC, I'm as much concerned about him badgering me and having a one-track mind than about the RFD. The RFD can sort itself out. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• The RFD is fine, it will run it's course... I am a little worried about Raymond messaging sooo many people about the same topic, and going on about some sort of persecution... I don't quite get it.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

4chan alert

Resolved. Admins and checkusers have attended to said attack. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Check your new user log; the widdle kiddles from 4chan are back. We're playing whack-a-weirdo with them over at English as I write. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the heads up PMD. Let me know if you need anything checkusering btw. fr33kman 04:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Main Page/Article 34

Resolved. Lauryn Ashby (d) 15:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to put this, but the selected article on the main page is showing an invalid transclusion of Main Page/Article 34. Exor674 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching that. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crat Pack

Resolved. rights removed by Barras ^talk 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC) and given back per request.

Someone please remove me from the administrator usergroup? Thanks in advance, Lauryn^☆ 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that you have done for us, lauryn. :) You have made my short time at simple quite enjoyable. Good luck with your studies! --cremepuff222 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the great anti-vandalism work and proxy blocking you have done for Simple. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 05:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC) PS. I sent you some emails but you never replied. :p

Aww, thank you both. :) I appreciate the kind words. (also, I'll get to work on those emails..:p). Cheers, Lauryn^☆ 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No; you were a good admin. :( Pmlineditor ∞ 07:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sad to see this, but I've  Done this and granted you rollback. Thanks for your work! -Barras ^talk 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sad to see that. Hopefully we will see you around the wiki sometime in the future!:) --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, that's sad...I hope you'll come back soon, Lauryn! You've helped me out on lots of things. Classical Esther 05:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform you all: diff for request of reinstalling of the tools and  Done as she voluntary resigned. Barras ^talk 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that adminship is not really a toy one can throw away when one gets bored of it. We have requests for adminship for a reason, and to give up and then request back rights in a matter of days is poor judgement in my opinion. It's disrespectful to those who voted you in and it undermines the whole purpose of adminship. It's fine to resign or take a break, but please make it more meaningful than a few days. Majorly talk 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)