This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Wow, you seem to be a a very established user on frwikis... with many edits and also advanced rights. I think in this case it is worth giving you a second chance. Let's see what others say. -Barras (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put a request on your talk page from that account so that I know its really you and I will unblock you. The only issue you had happened once and was on your user page so I think it warrents an unblock. And it appears others do as well. So I will unblock once I see an edit on your talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea whether this user should be given or not a second chance because I was probably on wikibreak three years ago. The reason I write here is only to emphatize on a several months block about a quite similar pseudo. This French wiktionary is the place where JackPotte has more than 50 000 edits. ONaNcle (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been unblocked. I probably don't have to tell you but if you go spamming again you will likely get blocked again. But I trust that you won't. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd block on duck. Snow fun at alls CU data is all long expired so unless a CU kept a personal copy a CU won't be much help. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have blocked based on the very big likelihood it is a sock of someone. Don't necessarily believe it to be snow funn at tall. But he has been commenting on the pages of users who haven't been here in years etc. Clearly being disruptive. Another admin is welcome to reverse, but I think its a vandal/disruption only account if not a sock. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note they are blocked for sockpuppeting on en.wiki as well so its not a stretch to think they did so here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha sorry guys but this is my only account on here, but I do want to know If I can put have a second account just for the heck of it as long as I don't break any other rules...
[[User:Boredsohere|BORED!so chat]] (BORED!so chat)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Hello all. User:Kennedy has once again returned to us as User:Ydennek. I for one, am very concerned. As many know, Kennedy was once a user I had a great deal of respect for, however this respect was tarnished, and then completely lost by the actions I am going to quickly outline below. User:Kennedy, a former admin and bureaucrat double voted on an RFA with the account User:NotGiven. This may have been a mistake, Kennedy claims it was, however we really have no way of knowing with certainty whether this was done on purpose or by mistake(Other than just taking his word for it.) Kennedy lost his admin and bureaucrat tools, scrambled the Kennedy accounts password and left. Both the Kennedy and NotGiven accounts are now blocked. Kennedy then returned under the name User:GivenThisTime and the incidents that followed can be read in detail here. Kennedy made two edits, here and here. When asked if those edits were made by him, he said no, and then later on came clean saying that those edits were indeed done by him. He was then blocked as a result of the abuse to the wiki, the block being endorsed by many here. Kennedy once again returned with the account User:Hoots. Once again, he was blocked by CU for block evading. The community held a lengthy discussion and decided that the accounts should remain blocked. Finally, Kennedy returned under the account User:Normandy, and was once again blocked as a sock of a blocked user. And here we are today. Less than 6 months after the most recent block Kennedy has returned. I would like to propose that the newest account is also blocked per block evasion. Kennedy has repeatedly returned to the wiki with new accounts, and has repeatedly been blocked. If Kennedy wishes to return to the community, I would have expected him to either request unblock on wiki or via mailing list, not continue to create accounts to evade his blocks. As Kennedy continues to evade blocks, I have to think that he has not learned from the past, and will once again only be a drain on the community. Comments?--Gordonrox24 | Talk15:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I disagreed with the first block, and it is just an instinctive thing to want to come back. His edits, with all these accounts were, it seemed to me, good, and the whole thing was blown out of proportion in the first place. Yottie=talk=15:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the facts as given, this is an absolutely clear case. His behaviour shows lack of contrition and lack of learning. The details of his interactions are pretty shocking. Blocking seems right. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just making this notice: Actually any admin could block the user for block evading. The user says to be someone blocked, evidence or not, just means the user can be blocked. Only a comment, take it as you wish, I don't care much, tbh. -Barras (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block It is clear the Kennedy has not learned his lesson as he continues to sock and waste the community's time. Just because he wants back on here does not excuse him of his past "crimes" which he must pay the price for per policy. If he wishes to return I strongly suggest he quits his socking and after some time requests an unblock the proper way. I like others have lost respect for the once great editor. chris†ianrocker9015:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Okay first things first, can anyone tell my why I am blocked? No, seriously, give me the place where the community decided I was blocked. I am actually unsure why I am. Secondly, I cannot return as Kennedy. Its a physical impossibility. CR90 wants me to "quit socking", ignoring the irony, I cannot return as Kennedy. I cannot return as Kennedy. I cannot return as Kennedy. The password was scrambled and email removed. This is why I have never returned as Kennedy. "His behaviour shows lack of contrition and lack of learning.". WTF?! Provide one diff where Ydennek has done something wrong, just one! I can provide hundreds where I have contributed to this community. My contributions set to 250 runs onto 2 pages. Since 26 May I have edited constructively with no problems. I even apologised to DJSasso for the past. Read his talk page for my further thoughts on my past. Seriously guys, this sucks. This hurts. Ydennek(talk)17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I didn't even know you were Kennedy until you got upset (for lack of a better word) at the BG discussion. Probably should have been a little more forthcoming about who you were. I realize your name is Kennedy backwards now. But that wasn't very obvious to me. At this point I accept your apology like I said on my page. But I can't find fault in people thinking you should be blocked. In fact I was leaning towards putting up a request like this the other day when I realized it was you. I felt a bit slighted as a community member that you didn't at least announce you were back considering how many times you had been re blocked for trying to "sneak" back on. However, since you had been editing ok I decided it wasn't something worth pursuing to avoid that drama that would be attached. As for whether I support blocking you I am on the fence. You have indicated you want to improve so I am leaning towards saying to let you go since you have been going for a month now. But I was slightly upset that you came back without telling anyone and without any community discussion. I don't have a link I will have to go look for one but I could have sworn there was a community discussion. I am sure Gordon can find it. So consider this a Comment at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I meant somewhere like Simple Talk. I certainly don't look at many user pages of new users. But like I said I am not saying you should be blocked. Just saying that I understand the other side of the argument. Really that's all I had to say. Don't really want to go round the usual circle. Hopefully you understand. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(change conflict) You are block evading, I have not seen a discussion allowing you back after the community agreed to blocked you indef. Again you have violated community discussion. And I get it's ironic that I'm suggesting you quit socking but it doesn't hide the fact it's the truth per policy. If you want proof the community agreed to block you indef, look at the discussion Gordon linked to. chris†ianrocker9017:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest I felt that the discussion that I had linked above where the community decided that they support the Hoots block and would oppose an unblock displays why you were blocked. The community endorses it. Both The Normandy account and this account are block evasion. The correct course of action would have been to wait 6 months, and then request unblock on hoots. However, you decided to block evade twice.--Gordonrox24 | Talk17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one has really hurt Ydennek. I am not a member of this community, so sorry to interfere, but the way he left me message on DJSasso's talk page, tells that he wants to forget the past and wants a friendlier coordination with the community. Vibhijain (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict)You'll notice that throughout that discussion users are mentioning that I should have came back as Kennedy. This is something that I believe many people didn't realise that I could not return as him. Anyway, I'm sick of this. I tried to edit constructively. I announced who I was. I thought I was doing well. I made sure people knew who I was. Yet you all wait one month and hundreds of edits into my account before banning me. Thats a disgrace in my opinion. Its all up to you, if you want me to continue to edit quietly and constructively I will, but its likely I cannot change any opinions so I will stop trying to make my point and wait for the decision. Just think about what you are losing: a constructive editor. Do you have many of those? Ydennek(talk)17:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 6 month block for block evasion, per User:Eptalon/bannedUser which "is used widely throughout the AN archives". Unfortunately, I believe the available channels to request for unblocks have already been made known to Kennedy, and they are a) your talk page and b) the administrators' mailing list. He has not used either, but instead chose to create a new account. However, clean starts are not permitted if there are active bans (which is the case right now). This is a direct violation and really, should not be involving the community over whether we forgive him or not. Rules are there, and to break them will bring about consequences. We cannot allow exceptions (and such loose ones, if you ask me) in this case and expect to be able to enforce similar sanctions on sockpuppeters/long-term vandals without giving in to the classic "if x was unblocked, why couldn't I?" defense. To allow unban is an implicit endorsement of the rewriting of our blocking policy. ChenzwTalk17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to CR90's reply to Ydennek: your argument about not knowing the mailing list address is not convincing, not to mention that User:Normandy does not have email blocked. ChenzwTalk18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt Kennedy mistakes us all for fools. This is just another game to him; his pleas of naivity above just highlight this. About time we made a ruling on this once and for all. Endorse indefinite block. PeterSymonds (talk)18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the account for ban/block evasion. I am amenable to removing the block once the community agrees to do so. But this has to be decided, and not by the blocked user. He should really use the correct channels, i.e. the mailing list. I had thought I was involved, but voting separately only does not an involved administrator make. Jon@talk:~$ 22:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the community discussion can only begin 6 months after this block. The user involved must not create another account for the purpose of a clean start/making an appeal, but should either a) add an unblock request to his user talk or b) send an email to the administrators' mailing list. All violations will result in an extension of the ban by 6 months. ChenzwTalk00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not resolved - do we often close out a discussion on indefinitely blocking a content-contributing user (who was welcomed back by admins and 'crats alike, given rollback etc) within 8 hours of the suggestion being posted? Was Kennedy actually harming Wikipedia? @CR90, most of the contributors here are children, or at least act like them. This whole playground tactic unfolding here to ban one of the only editors that actually contributes content just goes to prove that. @Chenzw, not true. I do not believe this discussion to be closed yet, so I'm not waiting another six months before it can be discussed. @PeterSymonds, when Kennedy came back it was pretty clear he wasn't trying to take anyone for a fool, why would he have been welcomed back knowingly by so many regular editors? @Everyone, this Wikipedia is in the doldrums, quality content is being demoted on a weekly basis and there's zero evidence of a change in fortunes. So much effort goes into these petty process-wonkery squabbles and yet so little into what we should all be here for, i.e. producing quality content. Such a shame, such an embarrassing state of affairs, no wonder all the other Wikipedias look at this one with a wry smile. The clock is ticking, this project is not proving itself to be useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair on the comment about being welcomed back knowingly by so many regulars. Most of the regulars that were around yesterday mentioned they hadn't known it was him until just now. I only figure it out a couple days ago. Gordon only figured it out just before he posted this etc. He knew he had been banned. He knew that to be unbanned it needed to be discussed yet he snuck on. Its a fair belief to think the he was trying to game everyone. While I am not saying he should be banned. As I said I am on the fence. Its not so clear cut as you make it. As for was Kennedy harming the wikipedia the answer is yes he had been. Your comment itself prooves that, he keeps causing situations like this (wasteful squabbles) which wouldn't have happened had he simply done what he knew he had to do and said "I would like to be unblocked and return to edit. May I do so?" We unblock/ban people all the time look at CR90 so had he done things the right way he would have avoided yet another situation like this which seem to follow him around lately. I am positive most people would have said sure come on back good to see someone who wants to contribute had he took the less dramatic way back. So I can see both sides of the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - unblock Kennedy, put him on probation for three months, one single wrong move, yep, the block is reinstated. In the three months, Kennedy will no doubt enhance the quality of this encyclopedia, I'm prepared to put myself on the line on that one. After three months, Kennedy is afforded the same rights as regular editors, slate clear, move on, get over it, get back to what's important. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree With the suggestion. He only wants to help, and has shown this since he's come back. We need the editors, especially when they want to help. Yottie=talk=11:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he should be given a chance; I don't see a problem of him editing here, as long as the edits are unproblematic....--Eptalon (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we can do that. And in fact he has already made one wrong move, so the block should then stay in place. Ban/Block evading is a wrong move. Great. If Ydennek had come back the correct way, requesting unblock, I would certainly have welcomed him back.--Gordonrox24 | Talk16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Gordon on this. While I understand what TRM is saying, Kennedy/Ydennek, as a former admin, understood the proper procedures for requesting unblock. Coupled with his previous socks, I have to say no to unblock. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he evaded a community sanctioned block. He socked and cause disruption. the fact he was around 2 months while block evading does not help his situation IMO, regardless of whether the edits were good or not. I appreciate Kennedy's past work but he was blocked by the community and evaded block. His past status does not afford him special immunities from community decisions. I have to ask, if it was me, Tharnton or Disney editor doing this, what would you do? You would block and extend the ban. Kennedy gets no exception due to his past status as admin and 'crat. When he requests unblock the proper way in a few months I will be more inclined to support an unblock. chris†ianrocker9017:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how forgiveness is a temporary thing. Process wonks can win here, sure, keep him blocked. Alternatively, use brainpower to understand that content providing editors deserve a final chance. Clearly some values have gone awry here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, repeating yourself isn't helpful. Last chance saloon. This is it. Now either act constructively or stop going on about it, I'm suggesting a last chance for Kennedy who, after all, creates more content than most of the community put together. If you're happy to indef block a content creator on this Wiki which is on the brink, so be it, and perhaps head to IRC or wherever it is all the chat happens. We should be creating an encyclopedia, and that needs editors who create content. Blocking this one is punitive and pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather late in this discussion, but I would like to say that I support TRM's suggestion to unblock Ydennek. The block was very premature in this discussion and not needed immediately as no harm was being done. Most especially, more creating please and less harping on old squabbles. Gotanda (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was also shocked that a "community" ban discussion could start and end within a matter of hours: especially since it takes about 24-72 hours for the majority of the active editors to check in. The human being behind Kennedy deserves another chance. Believe me there are quite a few editors/admins in good standing that have done worse and are still here. fr33kman22:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He already was banned so this wasn't really a ban discussion but a request to reapply the ban he was evading which was already in place. Technically no discussion was needed. He could have been blocked on sight. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gordonrox24 made it into a discussion by asking for comments; not enough time was given to allow for the whole community to partake. fr33kman23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, either way its more a discussion to remove the ban he is already under than to put a new one on. As such he should have been blocked until the discussion called for unblocking. -DJSasso (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further
I will unblock Kennedy based on the criteria I gave in my above suggestion in 12 hours time, unless I see evidence of valid strenuous objection. If, as I said before, there are any immediate shenanigans then I will reblock Kennedy, get my coat, hat and depart. As an aside, funny how all the hawks were around to call "block" while the doves weren't around until a few hours later. Perhaps a lesson learned that this kind of discussion should take place over a few days, not a few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, you don't have to get you coat and hat... notwithstanding what happens, we hope you will stay. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be me but it does not appear you have the consensus you need to apply your proposal. And FYI, no one closed it to my knowledge or I would have surely objected. chris†ianrocker9022:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if there's a serious consensus against it, then I won't unblock, but the hawks come out to play at night while the doves are active daytime. Very odd. And very telling that there's no concept of flexibility in some quarters, no "forgiveness" to an editor who has contributed more positive content in half-an-hour than almost all of our editors contribute in all of their "careers" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having been the first to welcome Ydennek, and who immediately identified himself to me as Kennedy, I have no problem supporting him (or any other editor) who wants to make a positive contribution. I have always (and will continue) to AGF. If problems arise, then another block simply goes in place. Meanwhile, back to editing. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal II
I don't see any consensus to do anything. However, I am moved by the arguments to remove the block. In light of the editor's positive contributions, I propose the following editing restrictions:
User:Ydennek is restricted to one account, subject to checkuser.
User:Ydennek is placed on editing probation for a period of six months, wherein intentional violations of the guidelines, or disruptions to the project will entail a warning, short block to prevent continued disruption, and indef block, in that order.
Not too dissimilar to my original proposal other than a longer probation period but more lenient action if violation occurs. I'm ambivalent to either solution, the only thing I think is pointless is an indef block. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wanted to enable good faith mistakes, without being too draconian. The six month probation is basically a suspended six month wait we would have done before he could request a return from the last sock incident. With this, I can support his return. Jon@talk:~$ 23:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is still being missed here. Ydennek has already violated guidelines by evading a block endorsed by the community, as he has done twice before this. This shows us that nothing has changed. I oppose unblock now, and support unblock at a later date, as long as Ydennek does things correctly and stops evading blocks with alternative accounts and requests unblock in the appropriate way and actually demonstrates he has learned from his past mistakes. However, if the community decides to remove the block it endorsed, I will fully respect that and welcome Ydennek back into our community.--Gordonrox24 | Talk23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with the message that we will be sending to all vandals/sockpuppeteers once we unblock Ydennek. We must be mindful that rules have already been broken, and right now we are discussing as a community whether we should make Ydennek's case an exception. Is anyone able to suggest a suitable course of action for handling the unblock request of another long-term vandal/sockpuppeteer who claims that he will contribute positively to the encyclopedia in the future? ChenzwTalk01:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we have had the (rare) chance to see him edit before this discussion, so this case calls for different measures. We cannot simply ignore what has happened, and block him on the basis that others may feel cheated by this decision. The fact is Ydennek has contributed well, hasn't exactly slipped through the system, as he was welcomed by editors (including admins/crats - who obviously knew who he was). Because of these exceptional circumstances, I don't believe any of the guidelines in place (because yes, they are mostly guidelines) are quite suitable. Either proposal, to me, is the logical course of action. We need the content editors to avoid this project going downhill. Yottie=talk=06:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ydennek's repetitive and argumentative interactions in the BG admin discussion gives an idea of how disruptive he may be if not blocked. He shows disrespect to our rules, and to some of our regular contributors. Unreformed, evading procedures, socks galore. He should not be readmitted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this proposal or the one above. While I completely understand the arguments about block evasion, every account he has created has been productive, and apparently the guy just can't wait to help improve the 'pedia. With that in mind, it's worth giving him a chance to come back without getting blocked as a sock/block evader. PrincessofLlyrtalk13:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this proposal. While I think Ydennek should have asked to return on the wiki or the admin mailing list in advance, he didn't hide who he was and has been a productive and helpful contributor. Grunny (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way ahead
Right, there seems to be a general consensus that Kennedy be afforded a final chance. His recent displays of editing have shown that he is a valuable contributor here, a content builder which SEWP would be cutting of its own nose to spite its face if he remained indefinitely blocked. I note that a couple of editors are still concerned over his behaviour, but we've all said and done things we regret here. The point is to allow him one final chance. I'm happy with proposal II, and as long as we, as a community, share our views on Kennedy's editing and behaviour over the next few months in a calm and rational manner, I can see no harm in unblocking him. As such, barring any last minute hitches, I'll unblock him later today. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just looking above, I see me, NVS, Petedownunder, Fr33kman, Gotanda, Eptalon, Bsadowski1, Vibhijain, Yottie, Princess of Lyrr, Grunny (and BG7 on K's talkpage) who think Kennedy deserves another chance. You, Chenzw, PeterSymonds, Gordonrox24, Griffin and CR90 are against (although Chenzw has struck his endorsement of the ban). There are several ambivalent editors (including Barras, DJSasso). Kennedy has indicated that he is happy to accept the rules of the proposal, including being subject to checkuser and being on probation for six months. I intend to help Kennedy in this time by monitoring what he does. My word is my bond. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per TRM's last sentence. However, I emphasize that this is something unprecedented, and we are opening the floodgates for future vandals to abuse this incident for their own gains. ChenzwTalk12:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't endorse the unblock, but it seems I can't stop it now, I just got a feeling we are setting a bad precedent and will try my best to hold back my "I told you so"'s when it rears it's ugly head. I wish Kennedy the best. Though I must say I feel better about TRM's suggestion than scream's. chris†ianrocker9018:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
I would close, I have voted and not recused, but 13/7 is a clear promote here (in the absence of a crat board), in my opinion. If the community is happy for me to finish the job, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you are on the English Wikipedia project and you click the source/cite button, you get a nice little choice of what type of citation (weblink, book, etc) then a form to fill in... it does the rest. We don't have that. Having that would be an improvement. If anyone is well versed in coding that kind of thing... would have my eternal gratitude. Warm regards, Jon@talk:~$ 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked but I wonder if you have it installed in your .js DJ. THe cite button is a part of en:Wikipedia:RefToolbar_2.0 which is default for all users on en (through global js). I love it, I didn't even realize where it came from until Sue (Gardner) got excited about it and wanted to know where it was from a couple months ago. James (TC)03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ For the record: Rollbacker/Patroller would be good (those are currently covered with the other flags). I woould hate to patrol your edits...--Eptalon (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't have a problem to remove the crat and admin bit as requested here, but prefer a request on SRP for the os tool. -Barras (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can I have my oversighter flag back please? I gave it up so Kansan could get some experience but he's resigned as an admin and we're down another due to Barras giving it back Thanks! fr33kman21:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no reason why not. Fr33kman left in good standing. I think it would just be good to have another one at least back. -Barras (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there's nothing in Meta policy preventing this happening without 'formal' request, give it back. Goblin22:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
We can't do this locally, right. But everyone knows this. If people are in favour, a bureaucrat only need to make a request on m:SRP linking to this and to his old RfO. -Barras (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the issue. If I don't, who will? I desire to discourage the practice altogether. Here is a better suggestion, lets put a notice about derivation in the edit wondow. That would be better than {{sofixit}} as you suggest. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I semi-protected the apge you have given; atm I don't see a need for more protection (or for protection of the talk page) --Eptalon (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia sock puppeteer moving to Simple English
Resolved.
Per this edit to an en.wp editor's talk page, it seems that the socking vandal originally known as MosesBeacon has decided to spread his nonsense to the Simple English Wikipedia, under the name User:HelloHello9369. I've tagged their first article (Australian Pun Convention) for deletion as vandalism, but you guys ought to be aware that this may not be an end to it.
The instructions are telling people to use {{Usurp2}}, which doesn't have a header. It says on the Usurp2 template page that it shouldn't be used, as it is simply called on by {{Usurp}} which has the header and status included. So we should be using the Usurp template, same as the {{Renameuser}} template, and it should be probably be subst'd as well (unless there is a reason we were doing it like that). :) Cheers, Grunny (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I see now. Template documentation is meant to be read, so I should have checked that. :) Yes, we subst... I usually do unless the code will interfere with discussion in the edit window. Jon@talk:~$ 03:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a bit of a break from administrative functions for a while. I intend on asking for the tools back at a point in the near future. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 07:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. User unblocked. EhJJTALK 01:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Done User_talk:JackPotte. 
