Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 25

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peter Pan

I'm really confused. I found an article called Peter Pan with some comments about being gay and Michael Jackson etc etc. I changed it to be more correct and a bot arrived and changed it back to the silly version. And gave me a warning for vandalism!! Help please? Victuallers (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a mistake by the bot. Don't worry. Barras (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into the exact rule that was triggered, but certainly the >50 edits has something to do with it. Sorry for the problem, could you possibly file a False-Positive Report? Thanks, Goblin 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Barras (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Disney Vandal/Bambifan101

I'd unintentionally posted to an archived discussion regarding this little menace, so I thought I'd do it right.  :) He was just booted off of English yet again and I have to tell you, I am sick to death of this individual. English has a long-term vandal of nearly five years nicknamed "MascotGuy." His idiosyncracies point toward autism. He's generally benign, but a pain nonetheless. Bambifan101, on the other hand, may be in serious need of professional help if he's for real. I remember when I was 14 and you can bet your bottom dollar that I wouldn't have been writing about the Teletubbies on a wiki site if either had been around at the time. Nor would I keep coming back to a place I wasn't wanted. I take hints well. This screwball does not. Most of his anon edits resolve back to Bell South in Atlanta. What are the steps to be taken for a formal complaint to the IP for TOS violations and abuse? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - I am not a doctor, so I am not qualified to diagnose health issues of a patient I have never seen, based on their behaviour on a community website. Also, I have no idea about the terms of service of BellSouth (or any other ISP). I can therefore neither tell you whether this user violates these terms of service, nor how to complain to the ISP; I am fairly sure though that the terms of service specify how to complain to the ISP. As the admin team we are committed to protecting this Wikipedia, we are not interested in the health issues certain users might have. Please also note that there are well-established scientific journals that publish articles about the Teletubbies, so writing about them is nothing to be ashamed of:
Those are just two scientific articles on the teletubbies, I am sure there are many more. In short, I currently do not see how the admin team can help you (beyond what we already do). --Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a doctor either, but I don't believe it takes one to see that we're dealing with a really bizarre individual. If he is in fact a fourteen-year-old boy, his interests/obsessions/tantrums point to a mental age less than half that in my opinion. He just happens to be good with computers or he has someone who knows how to shift proxies enabling him. The other likely scenario is that we're dealing with a fully aware adolescent troll who's getting his yuks whenever he logs on and pretends to be this person. I'm an administrator at English and I have to deal with him all the time. I may have frightened him off to some degree and he's coming here instead. Sadly, you may be right about doing all you can. If his proxies keep shifting and he's obsessed with editing these sites, there really isn't much either of us can do beyond playing "Whack-A-Bambi." In the meantime, I'm working on building my edit count here so that I can apply for adminship and help out. Good luck and I'll keep on patrolling for him over here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is not based on edit count, nor any other set factors. Everyone has their own reasons to type the words "support" or "oppose". —MC8 (b · t) 22:28, Monday May 18 2009 (UTC) (I Protest!)

My name is the master of all of the 6's

Resolved. Clearly endorsed. — neuro(talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD I have indef-blocked this account: 0 edits to articles, disrupting RFA with frivolous requests, making contentious changes to templates, a clear and obvious sockpuppet/reincarnation, here to cause trouble. He's now posting his password. I thought it best to nip this in the bud before it got beyond silly. Majorly talk 21:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought only oversighters could do that, and when I checked 30 minutes ago, there weren't any oversighters on this project. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, selective deletion can be preformed by any admin. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what you mean by selective deletion. Revision delete can only be used by oversighters (who have a (show/hide)) by logs and diffs. What EVula did was delete the page, and then use tick boxes on the undelete form to selectively restore the page without the offending revisions. The diffs are still available to sysops using undelete too. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but there's no use to leaving the password there in the history, either. I erred on the side of caution, which is the appropriate response in situations such as this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan topics

I've recently blocked (for two weeks) two IPs used by the Pakistan POV editor for POV pushes. I don't know what is happening regarding the anon editing debate but I'd like to go around and six month or indef semi-pp all the Pakistan articles I can locate in the mean time. Any objections? fr33kman talk 02:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two IPs could probably mean they're both the same people working from a proxy. I suggest banning the proxy. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not proxies. Both IPs are in the same /24 range (range block might help) and are UK O2 addresses (probably a 3G mobile Internet user). We've had a long history of this individual causing issues and POV pushing in India/Pakistan topics; he is very well known to the admins here. fr33kman talk 02:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82.132.136.157 (talk · contribs) seems to be part of the Pakistan Clan. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very much so. We tend to believe it is a single person doing these edits; therefore it's a block on sight issue. Even though, many edits do make it into the encyclopedia; and some edits are probably useful. The main issue seWP has with this editor is the constant POV pushing that takes place. They seem to be a Briton of Pakistan heritage who has a point to push against India, mostly regarding Kashmir topics. A long term solution is continually being discussed. For future reference, I'd advise you not to welcome anonymous editors of Pakistan/India/Kashmir topics unless 100% sure that it is appropriate. Don't worry about the recent welcome you made, however; it takes a while to see this person's pattern. Hope this helps! :-) fr33kman talk 02:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) OK, I was a bit confused at this block at first. I thought the users edits were quite useful, but some of them were copy-pastes from enWP (which I understand is against the rules too). Anyway, thanks for the help! :D --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 02:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It takes us all a bit of time to see patterns sometimes. I know I was a tad hesitant with this user myself until I got to grips with exactly what was going on. He can be quite subtle at times. Now, I make it my business to actively seek him out and stop his actions (as do many others here). It's nice to know you really care about the project, and it's editors! :-) fr33kman talk 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just as a note: Most of the topics surrounding Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, including the conflicts these countries went through are heavily edited by the user. As far as I can tell this user has been one of a very select few (read 2-3) to edit such topics in perhaps the last six months. I write this just as a note: not all the contributions of this user are bad, it is just likely there will be a (usually pro-Pakistan) POV in their edits. --Eptalon (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we semi-protect every article that has either "Pakistan-* relations" or "* - Pakistan relations"? It would certainly stop a lot of his edits? — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too much work to be done, and this also prevents other anons from making (useful) edits. Blocking would be slightly easier. Chenzw  Talk  10:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that doesn't seem to be working so well. Perhaps we could start salting them as we delete them? I doubt any IP has edited them in good faith yet, and don't see it happening any time soon. — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could the abuse filter be able to deal with this? Chenzw  Talk  10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Chenzw: The IPs keep changing. @All: I'd like to try and "encourage" him/her to become a named editor so that his actions are easier to track; hence why I'd like to pp the articles. I know it's a lot of work, but I'm willing to do it. It's very hard for people to keep track of what's going on with these topics and this editor because they do make some very good edits; just lots of POV pushy edits also. I've tried to engage in a dialog, but frankly I don't think they care to talk with us. It's sad really because they could really help us out by editing an area practically no one else edits. Right now, though, more POV edits get through than get caught. fr33kman talk 10:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

I'd like to request that my flag be restored. I've had enough of a break to get back to work here. Synergy 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that he should get it back. We've messed him as an admin. :-) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
200% endorse! (maybe more!) fr33kman talk 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Majorly talk 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problems if you become an admin again. Barras (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — This signed comment was added by Kennedy (talk • changes). (I ♥ MC8) 07:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Can I get an admin to swing by Wikipedia:Copyright problems and deal with (delete) the article I posted there? Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Bambifan101 solution

Since I've joined a mentorship project over at EN, I've made an offer to Bambifan101 via User talk:Junglebook2hater. He's accepted the proposal, so with any luck, we'll have us a good new editor with a bit of spit and polish. I'll keep you posted.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be opposed to this. Bambifan has created far too many block-evading sockpuppets and has been disruptive. Sheltering disruptive users was one of Simple's biggest problems, and thankfully it's gone away. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with all the other comments here and on other associated talk pages. You are welcome to mentor Bambifan on EN, but that user is still blocked here and we do not have a resources to mentor them. EhJJTALK 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; however, it seems to be the only place he can converse with Bambifan101, so I've given him leeway for a few days to continue the conversation; with the understanding that it ends very soon! fr33kman talk 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose but Bambifan will just keep on coming back if the community doesn't allow him here/there. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 00:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to mentor this user at en.wiki. After a couple of months let us know how he/she's getting on and we can reconsider the block if required. That's my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Bambifan has created a new sock: TheRescuersfan101, i think that he won't do constructive edits --David0811 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that the vandal-sock was Bambifan. I am strongly opposed to any kind of mentorship, anywhere. Majorly talk 01:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken with PMDrive1061 and the plan has been canceled. fr33kman talk 01:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambafan101

Could no one delete or alter User talk:65.0.181.192 please? I want PMDrive1061 to see it before it's removed. I have blocked the IP addy and full-pp the talk page for now. Thanks! fr33kman talk 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more appropriate for you to "permalink" that version of the page to PMDrive1061. This editor should be permanently blocked and then forgotten about as a persistent vandal and self-confessed sockpuppeteer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking of doing that. I want PMDrive1061 to see it because he's mentoring him for enWP and wants to bring him back here. (No chance!) fr33kman talk 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it. No point in giving this troll more food. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've blanked the page. I don't think a permalink would work if I deleted the page, would it? I've undo the pp on it also. Thanks for the advice, I just wanted to make the point to PMDrive that it is a waste of time to try and "help" this user. :) fr33kman talk 21:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, my friends. Ain't no way in you-know-where I'm going to help this indivdual after his latest rant and his latest round of sockpuppetry at ENWP. Better I find out now than later since he's obviously a lost cause. I wash my hands here and now. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repository for long-time blocks?

Hello, this is probably my last post before wikibreak, but I want you to think about something while I am not here:

  • We definitely need a page which list the users which are blocked for a long time (read: more than a month), together with the reasons why they were blocked, the blocking admin and additional info about their case. I think if it is done as a page on wiki, it should be fully protected, if not access-restricted to admins, crats, cu or similar (if that's doable). If off-wiki a maintained text-only file would do.

All I want to do is that if someone long-term blocks a user, the knowledge about the specifics is not lost whe n the admin leaves (read: 6 months from now, you want some specific info on a block, but you cant find it because it's no longer in the logs, and the blocking admin left?)

Anyway, I'll leave you to ponder...--Eptalon (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for this idea. I also think a page like en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse would be useful here to provide continuity for editors and admins here. It'd help new users and new admins to have a place they can read that would give them clues to potential new abuse by old long-term editors. Think about if all current admins were gone in 12 months but abuse was still on-going from a long-termer. fr33kman talk 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One would think there would be warnings etc to the users talk page that would indicate the details? Would there not be? Personally I think tracking long term blocks is just more unnecessary red tape. -Djsasso (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the user's talk page should be all the evidence and documentation that we need. A helpful block summary goes a long way towards that as well; between those two, I don't think we need to document anything on a separate page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CalUpswing

Single-topic editor; claims to be the author of a "definitive book on Badfinger", but has never made a single edit to the Badfinger article. Instead he makes multiple reverts to the Peter Ham article, to his own last-year's version laden with POV and not written in Simple English. Every footnote references the same, online version of said book. (The [1]s throughout the piece get truly monotonous.) His explanation for this is that "since it's an online version, there are no page numbers" to be cited.

Tholly attempted to reason with him last year, and got nowhere. (Their correspondence may be found on their respective talk pages; Tholly's at his 2008 archive.) If the editor is truly the author of said "book", there may be some OR/ADVERT issues. As it is, the fact that he does not reference a printed version (didn't he keep even one print copy, of his own work?!), has not attempted to rewrite his version in Simple English (much less cut the obvious POV in it), and has not made even one edit to either Badfinger or Tom Evans, despite his alleged "research", makes me highly suspicious of the whole matter. Somebody please check this (and him) out. Zephyrad (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials

Not sure if this is in good or bad taste, should we allow this? fr33kman talk 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't. There's a page on enwiki (Jeff's main project) that people can leave their thoughts on. Creating single-purpose accounts isn't appropriate though. Majorly talk 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have removed the memorial and soft-blocked the account User:I heart Jeffpw. fr33kman talk 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Señor Kruzkin

User:Señor Kruzkin is a sockpuppet of User:Mr. Kruzkin 5. I am requesting a indef ban for the Señor for block evasion. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks for noticing. EhJJTALK 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've fully-protected Kruzkin 5's talk page due to {{unblock}} abuse, I've also locked down the sock's talk page. I'd recommend any future socks be handled with the same treatment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm getting tired of hearing "liberal hack" in every unblock request, both here and on the English Wikipedia, and (ironically) when I asked this account to be blocked on Commons a few days ago. "Kruzkin" is no longer allowed as part of any new username here, so it may be more difficult to spot next time (just letting you all know). EhJJTALK 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ultra-paranoid part of me is going a bit crazy after seeing a slew of new accounts pop up on RC. Hopefully he's had his fill of us, though. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG for a day, RHMED for a lifetime

Reporting RHMED sock - JzG for a day, RHMED for a lifetime (talk · contribs). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Vector. Chenzw  Talk  08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back.

Just wondering if I could get Roll Back privileges for my account on this Wiki so I would have them on both en and the simple Wikipedia. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - You have only just started editing here, please show a need for it - it's not a toy or a sign of power. Also, please use WP:RfR. Goblin 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok. I just assumed having Rollback on the English Wikipedia currently means I have already proved a need for them. Also on the WP:ROLLBACK page it says to petition for roll back on this page.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. Requests can be made at any location, but we prefer them at WP:RfR. EhJJTALK 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold is generally lower for en users... but User space and Project space edits are imo not showing a need for rollback. Though apparently Majorly has  Done it. Goblin 20:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys!Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you typically use Twinkle on EN. Once you're autoconfirmed, you can use WP:Twinkle here as well. EhJJTALK 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted rollback. Rollbackers from other projects do not need to have made edits here. Majorly talk 20:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just changed consensus 1 minute ago (diff). Anyone object? I don't. EhJJTALK 20:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - see WP:RFR. This has been established practise for months. Majorly talk 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... you're right. It's been like that since WP:RFR was created. Well, now our pages are consistent and it makes sense that rollbackers trusted on another wikipeda can be trusted here, too. Any admin can remove the tool if it is abused. EhJJTALK 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I don't see the problem with giving existent rollbackers on other Wikimedia projects the RollBack tool. It does however make sense to have Rollback requests listed at WP:RFR instead of here.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the instructions at WP:ROLLBACK to say that users should request it at either WP:RfR or an admin's talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that we should give rights to users if they already have them at enWP? Rights such as Bureaucrat, Oversight, and Checkuser. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, though administrators and bureaucrats on the English Wikipedia do have an easier time at RfA here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With rollback all we want to know is if they know the difference between vandalism and not vandalism. If they have RB on en.wiki then they obviously know the difference and we can see their history there. But yes, generally its easier to get one of the other flags here if you are one on en. (even if some people here hate that fact) -Djsasso (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan relations

I deleted another "Pakistan-_____ relations" article today. It seems the message isn't getting through. Is it time to consider adding "relations" to the Titleblacklist? EhJJTALK 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Is it possible to use the word in a good article title? If no, then add it to the black list. Barras (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably overkill. There are about 25 articles that contain the Pakistan, another country, and "relations" search results. I know many more have been deleted in the past as copyvios. EhJJTALK 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea. per en search (here) are about 2,000 articles possible. Therefore, I would say no. Barras (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would say no on this, the problem isn't the articles but how he writes them. It is possible that someone could write those articles from a non-POV angle and then they would be valid. -Djsasso (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent collateral damage, a delete on sight will have to do for now. Chenzw  Talk  00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 82.0.157.111 (talk · contribs) maybe part of the Pakistani relations "gang." --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 01:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection.

Could we get the Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Carlos Nemer page create protected? It keeps getting created needlessly. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds just beat me to it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahahaha...ahem, yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Fast work guys!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You only beat me because I'm still playing around with Safari 4. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuses excuses =).--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request at User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins#Ping

User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins is requesting an unblock for User:SchnitzelMannGreek. See the request at User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins#Ping. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally decline it as he was socking less than 2 months ago. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please a link to the en contributes of the user. After this I will think about an unprotect of the user's talk page. So wy can discusse there. Barras (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one who protected his talk page I will unprotect it, however if he resumes the abuse on his talk page that he had before I will reprotect it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though it looks like you already did... -Djsasso (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) Sorry Dj, I did it now. I wil monitor this page. I think we should discuss now on this user's talk page. Barras (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I would at this point leave it up to him to request the unblock, explaining why he thinks he deserves to be unblocked. -Djsasso (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. I know a number of our admins' first interactions with Wikipedia was as vandals. Perhaps SMG will one day be a useful contributor or admin here. EhJJTALK 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. fr33kman talk 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_25&oldid=1601270"