Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 21

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonas

Jonas D. Rand (talk · contribs) Regarding his personal attacks, I have warned him on two seperate occasions and so has User:FastReverter here. I advised him that it is his last warning, any further personal attack issues and he will be blocked. Kennedy (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to outline what is unacceptable and what isn't for Jonas. It seems that, going through his talk page archives, he has been accused over and over of PA. Thus, whilst he may have a borderline aggressive and reproachful method of dealing with all problems, he may not think them Personal Attacks himself.
Comments such as these are probably not considered Personal Attacks in Jonas' eyes, and shouldn't lead to a block. But others, more obviously not a passive-aggressive way to solve problems, such as this, would lead to a block.
We're not bending the rules here for one person, it's simply his way of solving problems (which others see as violating WP:NPA) which needs to be fixed rather than a block. Basically, unconstructive PA = block. Constructive/Attemping to solve problem PA = no block. --Gwib -(talk)- 10:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree, except for the last sentence: "unconstructive PA = block. Constructive/Attemping to solve problem PA = no block." - I say Recurring PA = block I too am not bending rules for him. It is his way of dealing with issues, and I have been accused by managers of being agressive too (in real life) though I personally don't think I am. However, I have never waded into an argument that was not mine and blindly accused people of things of which I have no evidence. Hell, there wasn't anything to suggest that the editor was anything other than a concerned new user. Jonas took it too far, as he usually does. He should come down off his high horse and see that we, the great unwashed, do not have an alterior motive to writing an encyclopedia. Kennedy (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was also this one a couple of days ago from his IP. In addition to his personal attacks, Jonas also seems to have POV issues at times. This, for example, is considered a "more neutral" heading to him. When I removed that section again, Jonas readded it saying "Not an opinion, who thinks that these policies are humane or not harsh?". I've only been here for a week or so, but even I can see that Jonas is disruptive and resents everything about this wiki. Either way (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He does barely anything of use here, and it seems to me he is spending his time here as some kind of martyr or rebel to point out all the faults in the system. He doesn't seem to realise that his kind of person isn't wanted. If he would just communicate with the community in a positive and friendly fashion, things would not be like this. I'm slowly but surely starting to realise he's more of a net negative than positive to Simple. Majorly talk 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Jonas's POV (I am under no circumstances demeaning them) just naturally make it hard for him to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. Jonas is extremely opinionated, and I'm not really sure that's a good thing. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has now put a soapbox on his userpage. All in favor for a ban for continuing to break policy, please say so. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal

I think it's time Jonas was banned. He doesn't seem to really care about Wikipedia, or its community, and seems to only be here to act as a self-appointed in-house critic and martyr. As I said above, I think he's net negative, and we'll be able to function better without him hanging around acting like a pest. Majorly talk 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long reply from Jonas

Edit conflict

OK, this is a rather long reply, I'd appreciate it if you read through it.

FastReverter's warning to me was later retracted, on his talk page. This should not be used as evidence for the claim that I personally attack people, as it is now an invalid accusation.

The comment about Armenians, I later retracted, which also does not count. I agree that that comment was out of line, and should not have been made.

The slaveowner edit is backed up by evidence. I was rather suspicious about the claim, which was already in the article, so I did a search for it. This is what I found. Thus, I reformatted that claim. This should not be seen as POV. It is not a POV whether one ownes slaves or not.

As far as the NPOV on the Death penalty, Either way can feel free to remove the section, unless a citation can be provided (like from HRW or Amnesty International). I am not going to fight over it.

SwirlBoy's response is invalid. He has, on three occasions, tricked me on #wikipedia-simple Internet Relay Chat channel. He has gotten me disconnected from IRC, by getting me to /nick to some of his registered nicknames, and has tricked me into having information linking my new (at the time) IP address to User:Ionas68224, when he lied about it being on Private chat. He also "pwned" me by pretending that he was on my side, against Creol, that he thought that Creol was abusive. Of course this was all a trick, and I believe his support for my ban above is just a way to gain power. He wants administrators against dissent to think he is on their side.

Majorly has only been antagonistic towards me. "He does barely anything of use here". Does Majorly? Is Majorly such a great editor that he can say that? If this was me saying that to Majorly, would it not have been considered a personal attack?

As far as FastReverter's complaint about a soapbox, users are allowed to keep their opinions about WP on their userpage. It is a review of how Wikipedia accepts certain people, and blocks others, and how we should act as educators, not antagonists to learning. The governance model and blocking policy is so Anglocentric, even though we are supposed to be educating those who do not speak English.

The ban reasons are pathetic. Really, come up with something better than that.

Also of note is the comments about "types of editors", by Majorly and Razorflame. This proves that Wikipedia tolerates certain "kinds" of editors, and those who are not of the "kind" of tolerable, good boy Wikipedian are banned. There you go. One more reason not to stuff Jimbo's wallet: Wikipedia is full of liars. Those who say that this is an educational project, yet block when there is an editor that the Project doesn't like.

Jonas D. Rand T 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a type of editor that Wikipedia prefers, its called a non-disruptive user who isn't just here to cause havoc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to cause "havoc", or I wouldn't have created articles (listed on my userpage). "Disruptive" is positive when the system is wrong. For me to prove it is only my duty. I don't really disrupt, but I believe disruption is good when it proves the frailties of a system. Jonas D. Rand T 19:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when we tell you repeatedly that we don't agree with your view of "flaws" and would no longer like them "demonstrated", it's our right to tell you to go somewhere else. Archer7 - talk 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've volunteered on different projects of the WMF for nearly three years now. When I visit a project for something, I get a welcome, or something similar. When I came to simple to leave a note for Gp75, I got this gem. I'm new here, so I hope this is not the going rate for editors, but you sure were my first impression. I hope everything works out here for the best of this project. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swirlboy's opinions is invalid for this reason, Majorly should not be counted for that.. Bullshit. Pure and simple. Others are not at issue here. Shifting blame and discounting the opinions of others just because you yourself have issues with that opinion is a moot point.

End result: YOU are on trial here. Your actions and behavior are the only things that matters. You are ultimately responsible for what you do. All the goading in the world does not give you reason to receptively act in the manner you do. Only you are responsible for that and only you are accountable for your actions. Random exceptions can be overlooked, but ongoing behaviour by you is solely your responsibility. The fact that you can not see that your actions lead to results (Cause and effect) is sadly just something you hopefully will one day understand. - What you do will always have repercussions. You want to act like a self-righteous asshole, expect others to treat you like one.

You will sit and whine about being abused and treated unfairly. You will say it is about the establishment trying to silence to voice of opposition.. You are a fool. As Archer said above, this is not a democratic, by the people (and apparently "the people" means those who agree with you) project. This is a group that is determined to work together as a group to put forward a product. AS A GROUP. You are not willing to, not have you ever shown a willingness to, work as a member of a group. You has pointed out time and again you can not even function as a member of your own flesh and blood family. You can not and will not ever accept being a part of a group who does not cow-tow to your specific beliefs and kiss your ass doing it. You are not a member of a team and as such should never be welcome here as you are only about pushing your own personal agenda and could care less about the actual product. You couldn't give a shit about us but expect us to respect you.. You are a silly little twit who has never done anything to earn anyone's respect. You bash others for their actions (ie. Majorly for his activity level in the mainspace) when you have not earned the right to even go there. Eptalon?, Cethegus, even Razor.. they made that remark I could respect it, but you have not earned the right. You have not put forth the effort to be allowed to bitch about him. You are all about what you see is wrong and what others tell you to think is wrong.. You do nothing to do what is right or correct the issues - you only toss out complaints. You do nothing to help and a world to hurt. You are not welcome. I may disagree with many people on certain things (ask Majorly) but I almost always respect their right to say them and their opinion (whether I agree or disagree). You- I have no respect for. You have done nothing to earn it and yet you DEMAND it from people. The only thing here that is pathetic is not the ban reasons, it is you thinking your behaviour is acceptable in general culture. --Creol(talk) 10:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Jonas

Hello Jonas, Hello Community, There was a commotion in the admin community when I pushed through your unban, about 3-4 months ago. This community has given you enough opportunities to show your worth. There are probably many articles here that interest you, and there is also a lot to be done to get a fair socialist or even anarchist perspective into these articles. As an editor, you have been treated no differently than other editors. What is the actual result we have seen from this? - Most of your edits are still devoted to Userspace (or Wikipedia namespace), little is devoted to editing articles. A community is nice to have, but the community here is devoted to creating an encyclopedia. You yourself have written you will devote more time to editing Mumia Abu-Jamal. I am sure you also have a lot of information that can be added to articles like Ernesto Guevara de la Serna (Che Guevara), which is just a stub at the moment. You can also see that the opposition to your being here is growing. I think the only way to avert another ban is to radically change your editing patterns, and focus on articles. I also think that in the spirit of WP:NPA an apology would be in order to give to those you have offended with your bitey behaviour. --Eptalon (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have carried out the block, based on the consensus above. Synergy 13:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Automatic archival of this page

Hello, Simple talk has been submitted to automatic archiving, which seems ot work quite well there. The only problem there seems to be the amount of time to wait before archiving. Since the bot User:MiszaBot is working there quite well, I have also added this page to being archived automatically. Currently, discussions have 14 days to time out here. I think this might be a good start, given this page is much less busy than Simple talk. --Eptalon (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importers

I'm just cross posting, in hopes to get more discussion (consensus) at my request here. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I possibly have a 6 month block?

Title says it all really. Per my note at User:Bluegoblin7. Please leave my bots unblocked, as well as account creation by my IP and email by my username. It's all explained there, but if you want more reasoning i can give it. This is mainly to stop the "urge" of editing, and im choosing this option over others as password b0rking would prevent return, i dont think the enforcer works and i can get around it, so this is preferable.

Thanks,

BG7even 01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I believe blocking to enforce a wikibreak is a nono. -Djsasso (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, afaik it has been done. If someone has another way of stopping me editing that would be great... BG7even 01:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wikibreak enforcer code here on the English Wikipedia, that you might can alter for Simple. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was referring to. I don't think it's working here yet (i cba to fiddle with it) and also I know all the ways around it... so yeh, pointless :P BG7even 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs to block you. Just click log out and switch off your computer. Majorly talk 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Majorly on this one. Also, if you could find another website that could distract you from editing on here, you could easily avoid logging onto this site. Cheers, Razorflame 01:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe ;) I've tried that. I went on a "Wikibreak" several days early, to find myself returning every day and looking at whats going on. I nearly edited earlier... (And all the other sites im on I have the same issue with, other wikis, a few CMSs... im asking for a block on all of them too). But hey-ho, i might go with the b0rking option if this is a no-no... BG7even 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can confirm that something like this works, I can protect the page for the time desired. Synergy 01:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NonvocalScream tried to adapt the wikibreak for simple. I believe it works now. Say the word, and I'll protect it. Synergy 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: No.
Long answer: It works but that's only when I turn JavaScript on... which is rarely at the moment due to all the rickrolling going on. And anyway, as I said, i know the ways around it so it would be pointless - seriously, i'm addicted to Wikipedia... (is it sooo hard to ask for a simple block?!?!) BG7even 02:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely under no circumstances is a block going to be placed on you BG7. Its either this, or you just leave your computer turned off. Synergy 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I have already got the code and it works if i turn .js on in firefox - which im not going to do. Also, at school, i cant turn it on ever... soooo therefore it doesnt work. Please understand that ive been using the WB enforcer for a long time and i know all the ways around it... else i would have just used it off the mark. BG7even 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Well the latter isnt an option, so i'll have to password b0rk and retire the BG7 account... unless i could get a global account lock... BG7even 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BG... if you have to, every time you feel the urge to log on, smack yourself, or stick yourself with a pin. Admins cannot administer a block just because the user in question asks. Also, please don't do anything drastic like vandalizing for a block. You are needed here on simple, and we'll be waiting for you to return. So just log off, and get your affairs in order. Synergy 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Thats probably not the best advice :P Ive just been talking for about 5 hours about self-harm, suicide and stuff with someone whos actually done/attempted it all :P ) I don't know... (see? I said i would b0rk my password 15 minutes ago... but i still havent...) BG7even 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure we can't just block him?? It's for hie own good (he says it himself). We do need him, but if there is no other way, just do as he says I think. He can request to be unblocked if he wants. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you as requeseted. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 14:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about policy on simple.wiki, which is why I was unsure. But I know its policy on en.wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And unblocked per clear consensus against. BG, stop being a diva and just leave already. Majorly talk 15:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi good site" vandal

Over the last few days, I've noticed a vandal who uses multiple IP addresses to add "Hi. Good site." to articles (often replacing the entire content of the article). They've also added nonsense edit summaries when they do. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Any clue(s) what, if anything, can be done here? Right now I'm leaning towards the "nothing can be done" because it's on totally separate IPs each time, it's always just one edit from the account, and it seems to be random what articles are hit. Any thoughts? Either way (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the IPs involved trace to China (except one). One is a university address (Taiwan? Strange) while another one is that of a net bar. The rest are open proxies. The open proxies have been blocked. Hopefully this will discourage the vandal. Chenzw  Talk  14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another instance of that vandal: [6]. It was on the page Webpage. Cheers, Razorflame 23:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a vandal, this has been happening for over 2 years now. Those are forum spambots, usually run on open proxies and since devs in the last few years have locked html tags, these bots can only do that much vandalism..so the best thing to do is block the ip anonymously for at most a month since those are proxies from China and we don't want to block legitimate users on that proxy....--Cometstyles 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get my bot to revert them --Chris 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, it's happening on more than one Wikipedia. En Wiki example

"Moved to Wiktionary" deletions

Admins, when you delete an article as "moved to Wiktionary," could you possibly update any links to these articles? Just browsing through some of the articles were deleted today, I see upwards of a dozen links in some cases that are now redlinked because they link to the deleted page. It would be best if these were updated (perhaps someone can set up an AWB on this?). Thanks, Either way (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to work on mine when I noticed Jonas left a message for Gwib about him tweaking his block as to not allow talk page edits (while there was no abuse) citing Arb Com. I had to take care of that first. Synergy 22:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had just replied to Jonas about the same thing. See User_talk:Gwib#Your_reblock_on_Jonas for Gwib's explanation on the matter, Either way (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pages (templates)

I've been doing some work. I've had to copy over some templates because they are either used in articles, or used in the BLP page I'm converting. Please don't delete them, if you do, let me know so I can workaround. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas II

Jonas recently sent me this e-mail, requesting that I act as a messenger (I'm fine with my promotion, and guarantee that all sensible messages from Jonas to me (and hopefully other admins) will appear here). He proposes an account allowed only to edit articles.

I propose that a Wikipedia user creates an account called User:Jonas_editor, identifies their main account on that user page, saying on the user page that all edits with that account were made by Jonas Dalton Rand. The user will copy articles created by me on an external website. I also may point out edits to already existing articles, which additionally should be done with this account. I have not yet determined what website that I would like to do this on. The user will only make article edits, and create articles, but not discuss anything. Questions about the account should go to the main account's talk page.

I did not get banned for creating articles. Since poor writing was not the reason for my ban, articles written by me should be okay to include into Wikipedia. Who the articles were created by, and who originally proposed an edit has nothing to do with the quality of the article, unless the user only creates bad quality pages. Since I don't, I feel that there's no reason that articles written by me should not be submitted into this website.

Thoughts, comments, and questions are appreciated.

Jonas Rand

Thoughts, comments, and questions are appreciated.

--Gwib -(talk)- 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way. I won't support anyone using another account other than the declared account holder (a lesson I learned in August). PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chance. Synergy 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Peter said. Learnt my lesson in August (and still serving time for it). A ban is a ban. Someone isn't going to proxy edit for you. SteveTalk 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out, this is in fact explicitly not allowed. Lingamondo (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that have to do with this project? (Oppose this anyway, Jonas should do something else.) Majorly talk 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I joined this project for the laid back atmosphere. I don't mind the drama, but I'm trying to avoid it these days. My first encounter with Jonas was not a very pleasant one. I looked into the history, however, I did not discuss heavy in the ban proposal. I'm still very new to this project. The editor is banned. I believe the editor should be allowed to move on. I think the only way I could support his unban, is with a mentor. Otherwise, I don't think I could agree with it. I do however, thank everyone for the welcome, and I have thus far found everyone I'm working with very helpful and likeable. This wiki, is a wiki with a true community. You have to protect that, that community. Value each other. Anyone who does not value, or who is divisive, can bring a small community grinding to its knees (at a stop). Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He already had his second chance, I personally think this time it should stick permanant. -Djsasso (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick clarification (after some IRC chatting). I was not proposing anything. I was not suggesting an unblock, a mentorship or that we should follow through with Jonas' demands above. This was simply because he requested that this be posted here and discussed - which I've done. --Gwib -(talk)- 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never. Trying to get unblocked on English Wikipedia, too (see here). I would gladly say "no" there, too. MathCool10 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Due to 12 edits after being banned over 5 time periods in the first 4 days of the year (9 IP, 2 from his main account and one from a hidden sock), I hard blocked his IP for one year as well (and the sock indef). The message here does not seem to be getting through to him. Jonas is not welcome here in any manner. He used all of his chances (and a few extras) and needs to just forget we exist and move on to other people to push his opinion on. --Creol(talk) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no way. No chance. Absolutely not. What happens if someone has a question about where it was sourced etc? We would have to contact him, and he would have to reply. Therefore he would be entering a discussion. Absolutely not - Goodbye and good riddance. Kennedy (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protect please

Could an Admin please semi-protect this page please? Thanks.-- CM16 MLB  07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why is this even created here on Simple? We're not a webspace for you to get comments on your apology for another wiki. You spammed about a dozen users here for your own personal goals not related to Simple Wikipedia. I think that's inappropriate, but that's just my opinion. Either way (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vague sense of soapboxing and some canvassing, however, as long as he asks only for comments on the letter and not our own personal involvement (for example, defending him on ENWP), then it can be allowed. Don't forget, userspace is not mainspace. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know this is userspace, not main space, but I still don't see how it's the most appropriate thing. It's essentially using it as a blog: here are my thoughts about something. Either way (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that CM16 meant well, but it would've been better not to blatantly canvass so many people. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not beat him over the head with it. He was asking for help in a way, which is commendable. While I think it would have been better just to post to a couple people at a time, he is trying to better himself atleast so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. -Djsasso (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address all of you I needed a place to build my letter wikilinks and see them work, As I have banned from en I can't do it there, so I did it here so I can make it work first.-- CM16 MLB  22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sp declined. Let me or another admin know if there is vandalism in progress. Synergy 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section

CM, I commend you for taking positive steps. I do want to remind you to keep the English Wikipedia meta stuff (unbanning efforts) , off of the Simple English Wikipedia. Unless of course the community is ok with it. If that is the case, I won't resist. They are however, two seperate projects. Good job here and on your editing. Keep up the good work! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

There is a discussion on crediting DYK editors Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Suggested_section here. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to reinstate Synergy

Hello all,

it looks like Synergy laid down his Admin privileges over a misunderstanding yesterday; I therefore propose to re-instate him. Please voice your opinion; If there is consensus, a bureaucrat can re-instate him on the 16th of this month. --Eptalon (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the community thinks that it wasn't that big of an issue, I will resume my duties as an admin. I was told offwiki by admins and editors who know and understand the headings issue, that it would have caused a major problem if I had not reversed it. A mistake of that magnitude was completely unacceptable, and from what I am used to, would call for a desysoping so I did what any responsible person (or at least I thought) should have done. Which was correct it and take full responsibility for my actions. It was never about "I don't want to be an admin", so if, and when the community agrees, I would not decline the rights being restored. Synergy 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment: my advice wasn't bad advice - just incorrect for the WMF. I went of extensive testing I did on my own wiki, and told Synergy that, but didn't cross-check with WMF devs. Synergy et al assumed that I had, and so Synergy made the page deletions. I accept I messed up, and i'm more at fault than Synergy. Thanks, BG7even 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what exactly you did to make you want to give up the flag yesterday (when I asked, you blanked my post asking you why). I would definitely support him coming back as an administrator, but whatever happened is nagging at me ;). Cheers, Razorflame 01:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He made this clear shortly afterwards: He was given poor/incorrect advice to delete all the [[WP:]] redirects, so the developers could successfully implement a bug that makes all WP: links automatically link to the Wikipedia namespace. After the redirects had been deleted, he double checked with Wikimedia tech folk, to discover that, had they not been restored, there could've been major problems when the bug was implemented. He considered this an erroneous error of judgement because he didn't check with Wikimedia know-how first, and thus, unchecked, could've caused significant problems down the line. However, he quickly fixed them, and while trouts may be reduced in price this season, it wasn't worth desysopping over (IMO). PeterSymonds (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I would have to agree with that statement. If it is a problem that was fixed quickly and at the time, it definitely does not mean that he should lose the flag ;). Cheers, Razorflame 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, restore the bit. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yes. He admitted his mistake and fixed it. That is what I want to see of an admin, admitting when they are wrong. This is the kind of experience I like to see people go through. Less likely to be hasty with actions in the future. He will be better for it. -Djsasso (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he wants his sysop tools back, he should be reinstated as an admin. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't an issue for de-sysop-ing anyway, so I'd have no problem with him being reinstated. Fixing your own mistake once you notice was enough. A little embarrasment and a little slagging/heckling/trouting/laughing/pointing/name calling/burning at the stake/public flogging would have sufficed. Kennedy (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Synergy reinstated, per general consensus --Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Back to work. Synergy 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK credits

There is a straw poll to gauge rough consensus at this place. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_21&oldid=1334318"