Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 31

Changes to sitewide CSS

I've made a change to the sitewide CSS here to enable, when you click a footnote/reference superscript, it will now take you to that reference in the reflist *and* highlight it blue. This aids in navigation so you don't have to remember which footnote number you have clicked. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. This new fantastic feature will not work if you do not clear your cache. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say that I didn't notice any difference. Thanks for the tip. ;) Lauryn (u • t • c) 20:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Block setting

Friends,

Please be mindful that we do not disable talk page editing for IP blocks without great cause, and we use extreme caution when doing so with the named editors. They must first abuse the talk page or email privilege before we remove it. We should not be ticking these boxes preemptively. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unused Cats.

Hey guys. Just wondering if the categories in Special:UnusedCategories should be deleted per QD C1? Some of them are maintenance categories that would have to stay, but others just don't have anything in them. I would just quick delete them, but I am not sure if there is a good reason why there are all there. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete the content ones; don't touch the Wikipedia maintenance ones (eg. Category:Quick deletion requests, as they are supposed to be empty most of the time). PeterSymonds (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I cleaned them up. They fall clearly under C1 and should therefore be deleted. I just kept the empty WP/cleanup template which may be useful. Barras ^talk 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Barras!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Protecting Wikipedia:RecentChanges

Wikipedia:RecentChanges and its subpages have been protected with edit=sysop. I think that's overkill, considering that edit=autoconfirmed should be enough to keep those pages "safe". If we leave it as edit=sysop, I'll need to give EhJBot3 the sysop bit, so it can continue to update the counts. EhJJ^TALK 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do that then. The pages have been repeatedly proven to be vulnerable to attack. I don't see why we should tolerate this abuse; most active editors are admins anyway. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Give the bot the bit, just have it edit over protection. No blocking, protection, et cetera type admin actions please. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Peter, the amount of abuse that Wikipedia:RecentChanges and its subpages receive is ridiculous, and something we should not put up with. Let's just sysop the bot. Lauryn (u • t • c) 20:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've flagged the bot so it can still edit the needed pages. If we unprotect, we should remove the bit. Barras ^talk 20:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict) Ok. The bot doesn't know how to do things like "block" or "protect". It will just edit as usual, but with the ability to edit protected pages. Thanks Barras for flagging the bot. EhJJ^TALK 20:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh..could someone point me to the abuse received while under autoconfirmed? I'm much too lazy to find it myself. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Minefield. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One user, seriously? I know that what he did was bad, but IMO autoconfirmed users should be able to edit that page. I would agree with full protection on the main template, but not with the others. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? The bot that updates it is an admin, the majority of active users are admins and if they're not and a mistake is found, there's always an admin on to fix it. I don't see the downside to this at all. Lauryn (u • t • c) 21:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That autoconfirmed users can't edit the subpage of the template. There are sometimes issues with the template (from my experience as non-admin) that have not always been fixed quickly. I really don't see why full protection is needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason to edit one of the subpages is if the bot is offline. So far, the bot's been working fine 99% of the time. Editing the subpages is a complete waste of time if the bot is working, since it will overwrite whatever change you made within 10 minutes. For now, it may as well be protected with only the bot making changes to the subpages. EhJJ^TALK 21:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Most wanted can't be done by a bot. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent} That is what {{editprotected}} is for. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We have lazy admins. I saw a bluelink (I'm lazy too) there for 24 hours. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No one dies if the link is there for 24 hours...and if I see such a request, I'll fulfil it as soon as possible as most other admins, too. Barras ^talk 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

W/E. Probably for the better. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to encourage the use of {{editprotected}} in these cases. Truthfully, RC is a vulnerable page, that would benefit from protection. This is why we have administrators, to process such requests because it would be too dangerous to allow anyone to do this thing, as we have seen today. The wiki is growing my friends, we have to grow with it. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct your import settings...

Please untick the box Copy all history revisions for this page as we do not want/desire all revisions. When importing with the setting unticked, the import will import the last good revision, and a dummy revision citing the source. This satisfies our licensing requirements. If we import all revisions then users will have contribution histories that never contributed here, et cetera. Think of the cross wiki tools that count and cat those revisions, and how confused this may become in the long run. Also, we will have phantom move entries that will not coincide with our move log, to note a couple of problems with importing all revisions. Love, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. I fail to see how one revision satisfies licensing and what not; obviously the last revision didn't write the whole page. Lauryn (u • t • c) 03:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The last revisions satisfies it because it says you imported it from en which is all that is required. -DJSasso (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, at any rate, I fail to see the problem with importing all the revisions of a page. I'm glad you're here to tell us these things, however. Lauryn (u • t • c) 03:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said I dont think its a huge deal, but it can sometimes be confusing when you mix simple history with en history...because there will be one simple edit, 5 en edits, another simple edit, a few more en edits etc in the history making it hard to decipher. -DJSasso (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alot of the counters don't actually count those revisions. They are listed seperately from normal edits. Some counters do, but others do not. I can see how this is confusing. But I don't think its much of an issue. Personally I import them all if the article is a new article, and only import the last one if its an article we already had. -DJSasso (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Confused by the above. :) Does anyone object to my actions, or, may I continue? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  I don't really think you should go back in import history deleting and restoring. I would just say going forward that people should think when editing if they need all the edits or not. -DJSasso (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with DJ.--  † CR₉₀  03:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

VirginFanon & 24.16.56.60

• 24.16.56.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• VirginFanon (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Both "color vandals"...put nonsense colors like "Leuvee" in color articles. Fannon sprung up about the time the IP was block. Keep on the lookout for them. Some of their changes may still be live.

This should go in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If it continues after the first talk page message, I'll remove the changing rights for the names account. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's good Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (anything else is too orange to make (the point

Actually, both blocked. Seems the IP and the editor are the same, so yes, has been warned and blocked. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to sitewide JS

I have injected Obento's icon code into the Sitewide Javascript in Rev 2037718. Note that I've not done any testing and localization on betawiki for this, code looked sane. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Jamesoffur already fix the topicons with the fix prior to yours? -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See Simple talk if you haven't already. James (T C) 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, I had to remove the code for many reasons. I believe that more discussion may be warranted per James. And the code has unresolved conflict. I have also asked the coder to isolate and resolve the conflicts before I add the code to the site javascript firstly. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Zachary Jaydon

Following the request on my talk page, I have added the NOINDEX magic word to the two RfD pages involved for now, namely the above and Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Zachary Jaydon. Please go through them and evaluate whether a courtesy blanking is needed, as I understand that it should be done in extreme cases (of which there is no definition). Another such request is also present at en:User talk:Sandstein. Chenzw  Talk  08:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Protecting living people should be one of our utmost priorities. As such, I've undertaken the suggested action. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything that could be made as embarrassing or sensitive on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Zachary Jaydon that would require a blanking. I would request we not blank this in deference to saving the template usage for more clear cases It appears we have blanked it. I will not object to the current blanking. NonvocalScream (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When people are experiencing real life consequences due to content hosted on this site, especially when it is not an article but a deletion request, we should do all we can to remedy the situation. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just did not see anything particularly negative in the deletion discussion. This however, is not an issue with me, so I have currently no issues with the blanking as it has been applie. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; I appreciate the clarification. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't really see the point of it since there is nothing negative in the discussion, nor is there any personal information in it linking it to a specific person. I think this is something just trying mock us. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact I am guessing its the scammer talked about here trying to make sure people don't realize he is a scammer. Quite the timing. Only a few days after the post an "unreleated" person comes here asking to helped. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

I can't find the system message, but, can someone add {{schoolblock}} to the block dropdown? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's there. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

Resolved. Done by Lauryn Ashby (talk · contribs). Pmlineditor ∞ 06:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please protect my user page [edit=autoconfirmed] [move=sysop] indefinitely, and my talk page [move=sysop] indefinitely? Thanks! J.delanoy ^talk_changes 05:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Proxy Bot on Simple Wikipedia?

Considering how Wikipedia's ProcseeBot is such a great thing, that brings the question to why we don't has da proxies botz. The Final Downfall (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is universal agreement that ProcseeBot is a "great thing". We don't have a proxy bot because we rarely have proxy attacks. If it become a problem, we may get a bot to block proxies. We've talked about this before, and people are split on whether we should have one or not. EhJJ^TALK 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Until it becomes a huge problem, I (and the other admins) can handle blocking proxies. Thank you for your concern, however. Lauryn (u • t • c) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Student guide navbar

Could an admin please add {{Wikipedia:Student tutorial/Nav bar}} to the 3rd page of the student guide? Lord revan (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review

Resolved.

Subject of DRV is watching, so we shall keep it open, well, unless the closing administrator determines that it has a snowball's chance in hell of failing the review. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved.

Review closed as not restored; per SNOW and NOT. fr33kman 06:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

But it has not been the five to seven days procedure requires as stated. But whatever, you're the 'crat.--  † CR₉₀  08:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It matters not. There's no way that this is going to get overturned, so leaving it open is pointless. I would have done the same had I not been involved in the discussion. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesse20

Chesse20 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Multiple issues. Has created bad pages and made bad edits. But what drove the was when he commented on a AFD that he knows people with time machines. Obvious lack of CLUE. Block? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Peter did the honours. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 20:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked his IP address, too. Either way (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job, Purplebackpack. Quick reporting. You can also report similar users at WP:VIP. Classical Esther^♣ 03:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was hitting him for CLUE as well as VAND, which is why it's here :-D Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

POV editing by Christianrocker90

No comments made for almost a week and we seem to be going in circles. Said user has retired again, so there's really nothing more to do here. Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:18, 15 March 2010 (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.

---

I have a concern about Christianrocker90's edits at Barack Obama. See this and this. To me, this is clear point of view pushing. He is linking to a very conservative, non-reliable source to dispute the Christianity of Barack Obama. In light of his past blocks for point of view pushing, I am very close to implementing a block. In the final outcome of his unblock discussion, it was decided he would be on a 3-month probation. We are a month beyond that probation ending, but I think that if he is going to make these point of view edits, and revert others over them, a block needs to be considered and implemented. Thoughts from the community? Either way (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very notable to note that some people dispute that he's christian, I linked such a website that did, there was no POV, I was merely trying to state both sides. As I see it that's NPOV, not POV. I probably could have found a better source, and I'm looking for one now, but I'm not trying to eject POV, merely NPOV by showing the other side.--  † CR₉₀  03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it very concerning that you cannot see how this is POV editing at all. His religious beliefs should not be listed with a disputed tag. This would be like me saying "My favorite food is chocolate" then other people coming in and saying they dispute my claim because they saw how much I enjoyed eating spaghetti last week. The only people calling his beliefs into question are those with an agenda/POV to push. Either way (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  It would be "very notable" if you had a source other than WorldNetDaily. As it is, commentary taken from a website with a clear agenda (in this case, U.S. conservatism) is not something that is reliable. The fact that you reverted my removal of said link is the more troubling part of this to me. Not only was a point-of-view injected into what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, but you reverted another editor to keep said point-of-view in the article. Lauryn (u • t • c) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't see how you could think it is, the opinion is out there, What I believe is irrelevant to this Wikipedia, I have learned that, but this is not about POV, this is about what is thought by the people, some don't think he is a Christian, it is a fact, but for the record I'm not one of them anymore. And why should his religious beleifs be listed with a disputed tag? If it's disputed, it's disputed you don't hide it, that's the POV if you hide it. Now as I said I'm trying to find a more neutral source and if I can't I will leave it out, but it is a fact people dispute his religion. So it should be noted. Just like the truthers and birthers are noted. Or we could take out the Protestant marker and make a section "Religious beleifs" and discuss it in detail for more NPOV, but my edit in no way was pushing my POV because I'm not of that POV. @lauryn, you're right I shouldn't have reverted I should have discussed, but that was a mistake not POV pushing. I'm sorry.--  † CR₉₀  03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a POV dispute. The infobox lists the religion he self-identifies as. What he self-identifies as is not in dispute, is it? No, it's not. The dispute is that people feel that he's not following what he says he is. We could, maybe, put a dispute in there if there was a (reliable) source saying "no, look, here's evidence showing that he actually is registered as a member of the Catholic Church" which contradicts his claim that he is Protestant. However, in this case the dispute is "nope, he's just not Christian enough for us." This is majorly POV. The infobox is just to identify what his religion is. To put it in dispute like you have is a POV edit. Either way (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(<--)I do not think that CR90 was trying to push a POV here. I think he was trying to help the article by adding that some people do have the belief that Obama is not a Christian, just like some believe he is Muslim. I think that he chose the wrong location to add the information (the template), and also chose a non-reliable source to support it. There are reliable sources that do discuss opinion about Obama's religious beliefs and these can, and should be added. I see no need for admin action here. fr33kman 04:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• While I respect my good friend and administrative comrade, Either Way, this does not belong on this noticeboard. This is a content dispute that needs to be resolved without the block button. (I may however, protect the article if reversions continue). There is a sourcing issue, and this sourcing issue can be solved without my or any other sysops' assistance. I got it, CR90 has a history... but don't use that history to quell the content resolution process. How about talking to the editor? I note not one single post on the article talk page, or the user talk of the editor concerned. I will not take any action on this unless there is a pattern of POV edits (more than two) after the unblock, a refusal to collaborate or tendentious editing, or active disruption such a continued edit warring. Please work it out. This does not require administrative intervention at this time. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear! fr33kman 05:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel it does belong here since it seems to tie into the POV concerns about his editing from the past. If others feel that this is simply a content dispute and not a POV issue, then fine. Either way (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect, his is no longer in a probationary status. He has edited without issues since, or at least no differential edits came to light in this thread. With all that, yes, this is a simple content dispute. A couple to three times would indicate an issue. This time, it is a content dispute. One in which both Ashby and Rocker could have been briefly blocked, or the page protected. Consider the en:chilling effect that bringing this issue to this noticeboard without attempting a solution will now have on this editor's editing. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Hello all, this is clearly a dispute about content; all CR90 did was adding that "Some people believe Barrack is not a Christian(ref)". We can discuss about the source being reliable, but this is clearly a content dispute, and does not need admin intervention. I wonder if the reaction would have been the same if CR90 had added "Some people believe Barrack is a vegetarian(ref)" (No, I don't know whether he is; this is just an example), or if I had added "Some people believe Barrack may have no religion (ref)." Content disputes is what article talk pages are for. So let's discuss such issues there.--Eptalon (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Eptalon, but I must disagree with the priniple behind your statement. POV-editing is something that requires admin attention, and adding anything–anything controversial about a BLP, with dubious sourcing–are BLP violations which require admin attention. This is exactly the right place for this discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But from what I see, CR90 does not seem determined to continue reverting edits about that. If he was, it would be worthy of being noticed by an admin. I think Eptalon, Fr33kman, and NonVocalScream is right: this isn't really POV pushing right now. Classical Esther^♣ 11:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. Eptalon is, IMO, pushing this too far. He just did a few edits, and probably will not do again... ♥ Belinda ♥ 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The two statements you made are contradictory. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think she meant PeterSymonds.--  † CR₉₀  11:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations can never be pushed "too far". This needs to stop, now, or you will be blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, for what? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations, one of the most serious things you can do cause it can lead to legal consequences. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like hi was responding to Belinda... but he might be talking about CR90, the structure makes it sound like he is talking about blocking Melinda. As an aside, this is a storm in a teacup, and I'm sorry to see that we are all doing this. I'm embarrassed. CR90 did not edit the article and add negative, contentious information. He changed the religion and used a questionable source. Now I could understand if he stated the subject was a criminal, gay, robbed an old lady, et cetera. These are the types of BLP violations that we are looking for. But this information was not particularly egregious so don't go calling "BLP VIOLATION BLP VIOLATION" and expect me to drop everything and gasp. This is not an aggravated BLP violation. It is a Content dispute. And in this dispute it does not need me. Can I dump the teacup out now? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not read the conversation carefully enough. Never mind me, please... :S ♥ Belinda ♥ 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that I should have gotten a better source, and placed it right, the information is correct. This is something to learn from not to threaten a block with.--  † CR₉₀  11:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many chances do you need!? POV pushing was one of the primary reasons for your ban. If you haven't learnt yet, I'm not sure when you will. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Who said chances? This is a mistake in not knowing how to edit a BLP of a politician correctly cause I never do (I usually stick to wrestler articles when it's about people and most those you can get from wrestling sites), this is not POV pushing. This is where you leave a note on my talk page teaching not twisting it so you can start a thread to block me. Peter, please calm down and clear you head for a second so you canAGF and see this for what it truly is: a content dispute if not a simple error, not POV pushing.--  † CR₉₀  11:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you don't see it as POV pushing is disturbing, and shows that you should stay away from these articles altogether. Introducing a controversial claim into a BLP, unsupported by reliable sources, is a BLP violation. It is also POV, because I know your views on Barack Obama and religion. It was silly of you to make those edits, but equally silly to justify them as a "mistake" and a "content dispute" which do not require the attention of admins. Simply put: Stay away from those articles, and do not make controversial edits to BLPs with poor sourcing. I guarantee you will be blocked if you do. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And the fact that you can't assume good faith because you know my religious and political beliefs is disturbing to me. Everyone has beliefs yet I don't see you accusing them of POV pushing on articles about people they don't like. The fact is this: this is being blown out of proportion and twisted into a different meaning because of my past, I seriously recommend you forget my beleifs from this point on so that you can see this and every other good faith edit I will make to articles like this (only this time with good sourcing) for what it truly is. I have nothing to gain from POV pushing so why would I do it?--  † CR₉₀  12:03, 7 March 2010 (

Because you can't seem to help yourself. You do it constantly and you don't seem to ever see that you are doing it. It blows my mind how blatant you are with it and yet try to deny you are doing it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

<- I meant to put this in earlier so I got back up to write it before I fall asleep. There is NO doubt, in my mind at least, that it does not belong in the Infobox. The Infobox should hold what he self identifies as, perhaps if it was someone from 100s of years ago and it was unclear WHAT he actually identified as then maybe both other then that. If CR90 can find legitimate sources then I wouldn't mind it being in the article (perhaps sometime about the birther deal too, with a comment about how the court case was heard and thrown etc etc) the fact that most people I hear say it sound crazy doesn't mean it isn't notable. I would say that reading the piece that was used as a source if that is all you can find in another source the I would say it actually isn't notable enough to be listed. The piece doesn't dispute what he thinks his religion is it disputes that he "knows" what Christianity is in that persons mind which to be totally honest isn't notable for the article in my opinion. Christianity is crazily diverse in opinions, an enormous amount of the people who consider themselves Christian (including myself) would never be considered Christian by that guy. If people are trying to say they have "evidence" that he practices or considers himself another religion then that could be notable perhaps but not the information as it has been presented. James (T C) 12:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Solving disputes is that way. No blocks until someone tries to work the content dispute out on the article or user talk page. No admin buttons needed at this time. There are four separate administrators below above whom call this a content dispute and not POV pushing. Four people is enough to close this thread. Four people. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually only see 3 admin saying its not and 4 saying it is and 1 not actually commenting on if it is or not...nowhere near the point this should be closed since it was opened less than a day ago. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I obviously do not see this as a content dispute, but an agenda being pushed. No one would argue that it is/was a content dispute if I kept inserting "xxx is an epic slut" with a dubious source to another BLP, and I'm quite disappointed that others here find this a content dispute as opposed to what it actually is. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some of us want to see Christianrocker90 banned and off the project because we don't like his past, or religion, or the way he talks, or <insert reason here> when is not actually violating editing guidelines and a egregious or repetitive manner. It seems we are all watching him like a hawk and won't give him a chance to contribute. "Oh no, there you go, you did something wrong... BAN YOU!". Shame on us. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  That is of course only your opinion, it is the belief of a number of people in this discussion that he did violate an editing guidline. The one called NPOV. Something he was specifically told to stay away from if he came back. He couldnt help himself and edited in an area he was specifically told to stay away from when he was let back on the wiki. It's not our fault he went straight to an area that would make people scrutinize him, he choose to do that. He could have stuck to say WWE articles which he also likes. Instead he went straight to a contentious issue, that everyone knows he has had POV pushing issues with in the past. Its not in the past if he is still doing it.... -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we can move on. This is a content dispute. While clearly CR90 was in the wrong by not using a RS, this escalated much too quickly. If a pattern of POV editing from CR90 continues, then we can reconsider. I personally do not expect that from him, and think this was just a misunderstanding. I think we can move on to more important things. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• I agree pretty much with Griffin. I don't think one edit, when the editor says it was a mistake, is enough to lay down bans. If this was during the probation period, then I would expect this type of discussion, but that time period has passed, and we must Assume good faith and must take this as an honest mistake. If this type of editing becomes a pattern, then yes block. I don't feel one bad edit is enough to create this much commotion.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  The problem is he doesnt admit a mistake. He keeps trying to justify it. He knew he had one chance coming back. He blew it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down

• No matter who did it, the point that Obama may not be a Christian has been brought up, and should be investigated; this is independent of what happened above. I have added it to the talk page of the article
• We should treat the request above; if we cannot agree, that's fine, but this should not lead to us re-iterating things we have already said.
• Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like the message. --Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your correct, and I'm guilty myself. I should not be repeating the same thing over and over again, unless I have new thoughts to add. As an aside, I'll check the article talk page, and see if I can't help with the article in that area. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the big problem here? If someone makes an edit, and you don't agree with it, undo it and message the user. There is no reason to bring it up here. Furthermore, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to have dramafests. Razorflame 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Per the usual conclusions to the regular drama situations we have here, the lead figure has "retired". Can we now draw this ongoing nonsense to an end and get on with writing good articles? Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Said user is back. Seeing as how his "retirement" stopped the discussion, I've reopened it per his coming back as it was far from concluded. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Er... gauging the discussion, I don't think there is going to be any consensus for blocking, banning, or anything administrative. We all don't agree this is or is not a content dispute. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is we do have to agree or disagree on the fact that someone who was on a one chance situation (due to his ban on en) violated that one chance. Personally I think he already did since we banned him here...so really this should have been the end of it...we keep forgiving him and forgiving him...and he keeps doing it and doing it. How much of a history of POV pushing do we need before we realize he is as bad as the pakistan editor we all hate so much. Is it because he has a username compared to the Pakistan POV editor? -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And how many times have others been forgiven and forgiven and forgiven? I could name quite a few! BG7 comes to mind! fr33kman 01:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I supported unblocking him either. -DJSasso (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

CR90 was a long-established editor here before we came up with the one-strike rule (a rule that still doesn't have an official policy page). It is therefore not fair to include him in it. The rule was made for the new influx of banned editors (which is still occuring due to en admins telling banned users to edit here). fr33kman 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It was aimed at the people who were already here, thus why there was a need to create it. We wouldn't have created it just for future issues, we created it because we were having issues with the ones already here such as him. -DJSasso (talk)

It was aimed at all the new banned users coming over. I actually seem to recall it being said somewhere that we didn't include already established editors. I just can't find the link anywhere. fr33kman 01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you find a link where we as a community said that, then I will agree. But I don't remember such a statement. -DJSasso (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I can't even find the "one-strike rule" discussion, lol! :) I will search for it though! fr33kman 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I really should add search to this page, like I did for simple talk. -DJSasso (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well something needs to be done, because right now, I can't even confirm that the one-strike rule was ever made official. It was briefly discussed at [1] and [2], but where did we, as a community, agree to it? We need to make this sucker official. fr33kman 02:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the purpose of blocking was primarily for prevention rather than punishment. Doesn't it say something that he has at least stopped editing the article after being told to stop, and has stayed away from it for over a day? Kansan (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Kansan. I believe it was just a simple mistake that anybody could have done. I'm sorry I keep on repeating the same things, but IMO, we could just have told CR90 about it, asked him not to do so again, and moved on. Classical Esther^♣ 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope CR90 does not react too much on his side... :0 He shouldn't retire so quickly. ♥ Belinda ♥ 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On a different note, if we had any sense, someone who's should start amother EN-wiki AN thread about booted editors (like Mythdon, who's ban's up tomorrow) coming here Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mythdon's block on en was seperate from his block here. He was banned here for things he did here, he is indefinately blocked here. So when his block at en expires, his one here will still continue. -DJSasso (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a bad example...I thought that he was blocked until 3/9 (which he was, until last week). Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll write out what I think here; note that some people might not like it:

• This is *NOT* about CR90 adding something about Obama's religious beliefs (which have been discussed in magazines such as Newsweek or the Times)
• It is also not about him adding it to the wrong section/in the wrong way
• Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a written policy about "one-strike-rules" and where they apply
• It is the messenger, not the message that are important. The same thing by another guy would have caused less outrage

Given that these things probably will not change, can we move on? - Perhaps by adding a balanced section to the article; preferably written or helped by CR90? - Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreement with everything said above by Eptalon. Classical Esther^♣ 02:13, 9 March 2010 (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.

User:Andrew_Kelly

General block discussion

I'm going to go ahead and close this, with the block in place. The editor is banned by the community. Since no new information, or suggestions are being placed below, the discussion is becoming circular. If any administrator is willing to unblock, that administrator is free to begin an unblock discussion below the archived discussion. Until such time, the editor is banned by the Wikipedia community. Jon@talk:~$ 01:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

discussion on duration

The following discussion is marked as answered (No change in block duration or conditions, other than the "Standard Offer". ). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

Hello all, several people have spoken in the thread above. At the moment, the user is (indefinitely) blocked (and it seems: community banned). I am one of very few who was here when the original incident of 2008 took place. In two years' time, this wikipedia changes almost all its administrators. For this reason, I would like to propose the following:

• The current block gets replaced by a "time-limited" one.
• The block is set to a "short time" (months) after which it will be re-assessed.

Note that I prefer to re-asses more often, given that admins may change frequently, and that the people needing to do the re-assessment might not have the background of the past events. Please also see this in context; blocking is not for retaliation, or for feeling offended. Blocking should protect this wikipedia and its users.--Eptalon (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, endorse indefinite block per the community consensus. This isn't a POV-pushing, evangelising free-for-all, it's an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Per TRM. Lauryn (u • t • c) 22:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe this block (and our desires to keep it indefinite) is out of offense or retaliation. I believe this block is solely about preventing disruptive behavior to the environment of the community. Either way (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I originally set the block for a week, but as I dug deeper into history, I realised, this behaviour may never end. There was/is a pattern. The block is preventative, and the editor seems banned by the thoughts of myself and the community. Jon@talk:~$ 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we have the block have time out? (eg. in a year?) --Eptalon (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The user talk page is protected for only a short time. The editor is able to post to the talk page after that, and can appeal. The blocking time is no longer up to me. Jon@talk:~$ 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Eptalon, I was always under the impression that indefinite meant, well, indefinite, unless some constructive evidence was provided as to why it shouldn't be indefinite. Why would this be any different? Why should SEWP become a POV-pushing-evangelical-pedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise: Indef with chance of appeal in a year? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can appeal at any time. Hence no point in putting a "time" on an "indef block" (which is illogical). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, I mean, shall we have an incident every year? I will go ahead an unprot the talk page... but unless the editor states that he will not engage in the behaviour, I would posit no adjustment to the no expiring block. Jon@talk:~$ 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the indef, and I don't think Andrew is going to change in less than a year (which explains the time limit). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(<-) I know I am arguing against the wall here, but editors do change; also how many of the people arguing now will be around in a year? - We cannot lose, by limiting the block time. At worst, we do have one incident after which we re-block. --Eptalon (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion, what do we gain if we set a time limit? You say we do not lose if we set one, what do we "win" if we do? Either way (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't see why anyone indef blocked can't appeal against it. No need to set a duration. Also, clearly no sign (in this case) of a likely change in behaviour. We're not here to provide a free vessel for religious evangelism. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am willing to unblock with a topical ban in place. This is my proposal to you all:

• The editor will not edit any religious articles.
• The editor will not engage in any commentary with religious undertones, covert or overt.
• The ban will be enforced by blocking in durations of 24 hours, up to one week, at which time, the block length will be increased to one year. Jon@talk:~$ 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there is no point right now. Andrew just thinks that we are God-haters out to destroy him and that we're gong to hell. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me but we had a discussion (closed recently) above here where the community made a clear decision to endorse the indefinite block of this user. Why are we going round the houses again? What's changed (apart from Eptalon reigniting the debate despite the community reaching a consensus)? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing changed to my knowing. Jon@talk:~$ 22:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The standard proposal (if you can stay away/not sock etc for x months then we will look at it again) is fine for me. But it appears the community wanted a ban, if we want to reassess that ban on request in a couple months fine just like we did for CR90. James (T C) 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We should always be open to appeals. But until then, the user is indef blocked per the consensus above. What a waste of time this has been. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Standard offer James? I've seen this work a few times. But it can also worked with an indef ban. Also, we could tell him if he can edit the English Wikipedia productively, to show us improvement, then we can reconsider. :) Jon@talk:~$ 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that (or something similar with different months that we want) James (T C) 22:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So, we give the standard offer, tell him to edit on English Simple Wiktionary or French Wikipedia productively for 6 months, then we unblock? Jon@talk:~$ 23:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if he edits En productively! ;) James (T C) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why fr.wiki? If he doesn't speak French, he'll be less than useless there. Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The sending of him to another wiki was an attempt at wikt:levity. My actual proposal is the topical ban. Jon@talk:~$ 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is inane. He's banned, if he requests unblock after X amount of time, we can come here and discuss it. Until then, this is a giant waste of time. Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite. This Wikipedia seems to be an easy place for marginal extreme behaviour to somehow be "acceptable". I've edited on en.wiki for quite a while and never experienced the kind of "output" that this user has added. While this Wikipedia is aimed at Simple English speakers, it shouldn't become a vessel of propaganda for anyone. I don't think our readership needs to be sermonised every time they say or do something that disagrees with a strict adherence to a particular doctrine. Contribute to articles by all means, but as I said before, this is an encyclopedia. Write it. Don't use it to promote a point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

All I want to say is that I am slightly disappointed in Eptalon for bringing this up right after there was clear consensus for indefinate. Wasn't even close to no-consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Christianrocker90

The following discussion is marked as answered (-->User is banned, with the Standard Offer extended, as we do with most all banned users. Any IRC related anything is up to the chanops on IRC and is beyond the remit of this board.). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

The editor has a past history. I don't the the editor can ever do this project without disruption. I'll list the issues in anti chronological order.

• Blocked now for project disruption. We will call this "grinding an axe" which is counter to collaboration. (Disclose bias - this was on my permissions request)

• Blocked for soapboxing, refusing to discuss, and reversion of a BLP removal

• Does not understand the object of what we do. Does not understand Verifiability, and Sourcing. Uses userspace to store stories that are not verifiable. The fact that this DRV was initiated tells me he does not understand guidelines. Would like to en:WP:BATTLE over it.

• Was unable to simplify imported articles. Fought tirelessly to retain the flag after demonstrating his inability to use it properly.

• Blocked for pov pushing.

The editor was banned for a long period. The editor has exhausted the patience of the community and has become a distraction to what we do here. With great regret, I'm asking the community to show him the door. Jon@talk:~$ 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

...I thought we just did? PeterSymonds (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The block expires.. I'm asking for a siteban. Jon@talk:~$ 16:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm getting quite sick of seeing his name on these boards. Please restore the indef block. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Me as well, he wastes too much of the communities time. He blew his second chance. He should be gone. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I only made the block expire because I felt that the community should be the one to make this discission. I have no strong feelings either way but I do feel that a block had to be made. The biggest problems, I personally have with his most recent behaviour is the issues surrounding his comments on the NVS RFB, and his completely erroneous and POV use of rollback last night. I am not saying that I agree with the edit the user made but that's a matter for the article's talk page and not here. I also did not like being told by Aaron (on IRC) that we can all go and "bite his ass". I'd, personally, not like to see CR90 banned indef because I think he's getting slowly better, very slowly, but I do see it. I will, of course, set whatever block/ban the community desires. fr33kman 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the fact is he is not "getting better" quickly enough. He shows up on ANI on my watchlist too frequently, and for substantiated issues. The volunteer pool is not that great on our project, and I'm afraid we can't waste any more man-hours on him. Jon@talk:~$ 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully support a community ban. At the time of his de-banning, we placed him on a 3-month probation with the block being restored if he fouled up in that 3-month span. This probation ended just over a month ago, but since then it seems like there are still issues arising. If this were all happening a year down the line, I might think differently, but since it's only about 4 months after his ban was repealed, I think it's clear he cannot function here. Either way (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly support a community ban per Either way and Peter. Lauryn (u • t • c) 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(<-)We should leave this discussion open for 24 hours so that the normal regulars can comment and then I'll act on the consensus, whatever that turns out to be. fr33kman 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• With regret, I must agree with a ban. Although fr33k is correct in some ways, SimpleWP is not a rehab center. None of us have the time or patience for CR90, and although I had hopes for him, he has not fulfilled my expectations. I suggest that CR90 take a long extended wikibreak (a real one, as I note that during his ban, he still was on IRC), and come back and edit somewhere else (wikia, some other wiki). He is now starting to reminding me of someone else, who had ups and downs. CR90's very final warning happened a long time ago. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  If there is consensus for an indef block (and it looks like there will be), then I think an IRC ban would also be in order. fr33kman 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  We can't control that here, the chanops will have to decide that. Jon@talk:~$ 00:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I know. I was merely responding to Griffin's comment that he was still on IRC during his last block. As one of the channel operators, it is already my intention to ban him there if we have a long or an indef block decided here. fr33kman 01:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, and I don't wish to express an overall negative opinion toward this for opposing, but I am somewhat troubled that the "final straw" here will be the comments on Jon's RfB. I am fearful of creating a chilling environment where people may fear that disagreement with somebody's nomination could lead to banning. At the very least, I would hope that you all would make it clear that people should feel free to bring up legitimate criticism/critique of nominees in general. I am aware that this is not at all an isolated incident, but I just fear that it could give off that impression, if that makes sense. Kansan (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-admins are very welcome to comment here. You should note, that the RFB is not the final straw, my main reasons for blocking were this POV abuse of rollback, and being told we could "bite his ass". He then went on to retire (again). I've always considered Aaron to be a friend, but his attitude lately has been troubling to me. fr33kman 21:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if the final straw were those comments, this is a user who has been banned multiple times, blocked even more times. He has a history stretching back many years over many wikis. A person disagreeing with a nomination will never get someone banned. And believe me when I say this, nominations will continue to be vigourously disagreed with...or agreed with like sheep. This wiki rarely tends to stick to past decisions....lots of flip flopping. What we do to CR won't affect anyone else...heck knowing how things go here...won't affect him even in a few months once people again loose their nerve and let him back yet another time. -DJSasso (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And I do agree that all of this is cause for blocking, especially given the user's edit history. Jon's first edit in this section seemed to read as if his disruption there was a main cause, although I know that he probably didn't actually mean to imply that, in light of his mention of Aaron's other actions (i.e. the rollback abuse) and the fact that I've never seen anything from Jon that I feel would constitute abuse of admin powers. In any event, I just wanted to get that all cleared up to make sure. Kansan (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, not again - We already discussed a "community ban" of another editor, two days ago (next two sections up). Can I perhaps suggest we observe a cooling-time between such discussions? - That is we stop discussing this now, cool down, and start again Saturday (20th of the month)? - We are supposed to be taking decisions here. We are supposed to be thinking by ourselves. Can I therefore propose a "stop discussing community bans until the end of the week? --Eptalon (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He has since done more things. Eptalon, this is a situation that needs to be fixed. The lets ignore it position that you keep pushing isn't working and hasn't worked in the past. He has been banned and blocked so many times. Enough is enough. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

see Bandwagon effect at en, Spiral of silence at en. Otherwise put: Agreeing is easier than dissenting - that's why you often see people agree with the current opinion, rather than dissenting with it. What I fear will happen is that people will agree on a "community ban", not because they think it is the right thing to do, but because they already did the same thing, two days ago. In other words: People will decide differently, if they do so on Saturday. --Eptalon (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, we're all here for a jolly good laugh, and we'll forget all about it on Saturday. Never mind the past bans, numerous blocks, constant warnings. We're all imagining a problem! Please. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would actually turn that around on you Eptalon. You keep pushing to not ban him indefinately in my opinion because its always easier to not do something that might hurt someones feelings than to do what is right. -DJSasso (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I must say that I agree with the site-wode ban. CR90 has done some good things for this wiki, and he is most likly correct when he says that the wrestiling articles will not be updated without him. A real shame, but I think we need to draw the line somewhere. I like CR90, and I tried to defend him in the above discussion, but there is nothing more I can say for that. I wish it had not come to this.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very saddened at CR90's behavior, and with exceeding regret and sadness say, that I think a longer block than just two weeks should be given. I'm not sure about indefinite blocks, and I don't like the idea of banning anybody in Wikipedia, but his recent behavior seems to justify both. I supported him in the above discussion, but his rash retirements, his imprudence in trying to push his story after he knew it was not allowed, his inappropriate use of rollback, and, above all, the "biting off his a-s" incident has made me fear that he will not be able to change so soon. Therefore my opinion is that a block with a time limit - but a rather long one - should be given, as a sort of long wikibreak for CR90 to cool and think carefully over his actions and consequences. I say this with great regret, as I, too, like CR90 and think he is a great help in wrestling articles ect. I join with Gordonrox in saying I really wish it had not come to this. Classical Esther^♣ 23:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

CR asked me to point this message out. -DJSasso (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To which I strenuously object. Banned users and users with a history such as his do not get to dictate the terms of their blocks/bans. Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just pointed it out for him to be fair. -DJSasso (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, I didn't mean to sound like I was "shooting the messenger", so to speak. Apologies, Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Might sound weird from my part, but I agree this block. It is suppossed that if you're blocked at en.wiki you'll emigrate here. You can't just waste the opportunity again. It's idiotic! What more can I say? Just to wish Christianrocker90 a good future :-) --Diego (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd like to propose that CR90's block be restored to indef and that there would exist the chance of a block review in 1 year from now. There would be no earlier review than that, and the review in 1 year would not be automatic. It would depend on CR90 (and others) showing that new evidence exists to show that Aaron has potentially changed permanently from his current ways. I believe that this would give Aaron a year to grow as a human being outside of the confines of Wikipedia. As a 41 year-old I know how much a person can learn and grow in a year, especially if they are not receiving the stress that caused them to mess up in the first place. I know Aaron has not changed quickly enough for many people here, but I think he has changed a little bit, at least; and that means there is hope. I hate the idea of indef (perma) blocks for named and established users because they indicate that the person is never able to change, and I just don't ever think this is true. An indef ban says that even in 10, 20, 40, 80 years Aaron can't ever become a good editor here. Please consider this proposal, after all, all I'm asking for is the possibility of a block review in a year, not the certainty. This proposal follows many admin's standard of doubling the last block. Additionally, although this is not a matter for onwiki, CR90 will be banned from the Simple English Wikipedia IRC channel for the duration of this block. Both of these actions will give a much needed break to the WP, the IRC channel and to Aaron himself. fr33kman 04:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would be willing to return the block length to indef, and extend a modified version of the en:WP:Standard Offer...

1. Wait one year without sockpuppeting.
2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. Jon@talk:~$ 04:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I really didn't like the idea of a ban, and indefinite block didn't sound much better, so I had settled on something like a yearly block...but Fr33kman's proposal is very good, and NonVocalScream's requirements are very reasonable. I think the proposal is safe without being merciless, and will give CR90 another chance. Classical Esther^♣ 04:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fr33kman is right. I like CR90, but this is far too much. He really deserves a year-round block. :) I hope he will come back and behave more decently, though I don't know if I have the right to say this because I am not a wonderful person myself. Fr33kman, great brain-storming! You really have such briliant ideas. I think you deserve a barnstar... :P check your talk page later! ♥ Belinda ♥ 05:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with blocking him from SEWP IRC. Yottie ^=talk= 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef

I've blocked Christianrocker90 indef per consensus as an uninvolved admin (as far as I am aware I have never spoken to him or edited with him). One thing we can agree on is that the block length needs to be longer, and indef if no fixed duration. I believe we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Proposals are already being made for his return, before an extended block has been issued. After one year, if he wishes to return then another conversation may be had. But for now, let this be the end of it. Synergy 08:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

Resolved.

Hi all, I'd like an admin to fix some grammatical errors at MediaWiki:Noarticletext NS User, MediaWiki:Noarticletext NS User talk, and MediaWiki:Noarticletext NS Other. In those three pages, the first "an" should be changed to "a"; for example, "an user page" should be changed to "a user page". Thanks. Graham87 (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bureaucrats

Resolved.

Hi guys, could someone please de-bot user:MisterWiki? He's finished with his stub sorting and, try as I might, I can't get the check box out of the bot field. ;) Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Lauryn (u • t • c) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't MisterWiki's bot be given the flood flag? It's flooding RC with its stubsorting. :p Classical Esther^♣ 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't work with AWB, Griffinofwales (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've opted to do the stub sorting job with my bot acc because I don't want to do it anymore with my main account. I'll slow down the edits. --Diego ^{let's talk} 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Import request

Resolved.

Could somebody please import the English Wikipedia's article on Paul Bunyan and move it to my userspace? I'd like to work on it over the next couple of days. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done at User:Kansan/rPaul Bunyan - made a typo as you can see, but I assume you'll fix it. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei

Resolved.

Hi. Just to let you know. I have tried to explain to Tenmei many times that he does have to attribute when copying articles from the English Wikipedia. I've linked him to WP:CW, but he disregards what I say. He says that it is his own work so he doesn't have to attribute or they are complete rewrites of these articles. Should you delete his articles or not? Anyway they aren't too simplified. They are just lists and copypastes of references. --Diego ^{let's talk} 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The same happens with Shustov, who doesn't attributes and his articles aren't simplified, he just removes some parts. --Diego ^{let's talk} 21:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just left a message for Shustov. From the name, I suspect Tenmei may be female, but I don't know. Anyway, it is annoying, but they're both doing pretty good work filling holes in subject matter. What should happen now? SS✞^(Kay) 21:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are filling holes but the matter is:

1. They are not attributing
2. They are not simplifying

--Diego ^{let's talk} 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition that their messages are annoying. They don't understand! :'( --Diego ^{let's talk} 21:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I explained here that I believed that attribution was not necessary. However, as soon as my misunderstanding was explained, I did begin to correct my omissions.

In addition, I have added attribution to an article -- List of Emperors of Japan -- which was not created by me in this venue -- see here.

In no sense is it my intention to be uncooperative or annoying.

These tables are useful lists; and my plan is to create simplified articles about each of the emperors and eras.

An first step in this direction is the article I have today created about Emperor Ankō. The attribution in this article is proof of my willingness to comply with wiki-conventions. If there are more mistakes, I will correct them as well -- and then I will begin creating articles which have no obvious errors. --Tenmei (talk)

Good. I hope you to do it. (And please sign with 4 tildes: ~~~~) --Diego ^{let's talk} 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have saw your SUL and it looks pretty good. You are a very good editor at the English Wikipedia, but this is the Simple English Wikipedia. You have to write with a more simple English, there are 850 basic Simple English words (I don't remember where they are, though :P). I hope you good luck here in the Simple English Wikipedia... But Shustov... I have notified him about this... I hope he has read it. --Diego ^{let's talk} 22:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Diego and Tenmei, the list is here Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't really see anything here that requires any administrative action. Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to ask for help a while ago. However, it is solved. Thanks :) --Diego ^{let's talk} 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I posted all relevant attributions (introductions), performed requested simplifications and asked for others' opinions. Where are you? Yahoo! Shustov (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not where you want us to be. You really didn't need to post this everywhere; on the talk pages of the articles in question would have been good enough (or my talk page for that matter). Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

mintheadsleft

Currently, our archive settings are as follows:

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 31

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(7d)

|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive %(counter)d

}}

Can I suggest that we remove the minthreadsleft setting? I don't see any reason for us to keep old threads around so that the page doesn't look empty. Admin noticeboard should be kept tidy. EhJJ^TALK 01:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea to remove it alltogether, or at least shrink it from four to one. Lauryn (u • t • c) 01:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kill it completely per EhJJ's reasoning. Cheers, Goblin 12:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

I am not against removing it, but part of the reason why people leave it is that so people who aren't as familiar with talk page (ie non editors) can see how to start a new topic. How does having an old topic up hurt when it could possibly actually help? To be honest I think we archive way to fast. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think minthreadsleft was added (both here, and on simple talk; its archival settings look similar) to not have the respective page look empty. While I don't claim that 4 is a particularly good or bad choice, I think that the setting should not be removed altogether (as we might end up with an empty page), and that it should not be set to like 1. Looking more closely the current setting probably is not as bad as it looks. Also note that automatic archival only archives the pages where it is used, and not their talk pages, and such. Eptalon (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)