User talk:Bonkers The Clown

Hi there, PLEASE do read this first. And after that, please see also:

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bonkers The Clown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Half a year has passed by, and in this period of time I have sincerely atoned. Looking back, I deeply wish that I had not committed such deplorable acts here. I do enjoy editing here and hence it is truly a pity that I was led astray by the temptation of trolling. I appreciate this platform of information-spreading and I truly believe that I can serve the project well. I understand where I have gone wrong and my soul has been purified, after half a year of meditation in peace. May we not neglect the multitude of good articles and may we not dwell on mishaps. Having been cast aside for six months, I ask for your forgiveness and may we put things aside to make this world a better place. I ask, kind admin reading this, that I be unblocked. I promise to do what a good Wikipedian would. I will accept whatever penalties the community decides to impose on me, just so that I may return to proper editing, which is what I truly love. It is understandable if you reject my unblock request. I will not harbour hate toward you if you do. Rather, it is love, and only love, that I will give to the world. Embrace the world with love and do good, that is the way of life I have attained. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Thank you for reading this and Bless You. --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

We all make mistates; being willing to own up to them is commendable. I believe a second chance is reasonable here, so I have unblocked you. Please bear in mind your edits will be subject to closer scrutiny than many editors', but if you keep productive there's no reason you can't be a valued member of the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Although I found Bonkers annoying in some of our interactions, I believe he has the desire and ability to contribute quality content, especially on poorly represented topics. I support unblocking him and am willing to offer him some guidance. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger:, are you aware that this user was blocked after a community discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Request indefinite block of User:Bonkers The Clown) so a unilateral unblock may not have been appropriate. Even if we are going to give this user another chance (4th or 5th? Certainly not his second chance), we should be applying topic bans to try and prevent previous problems from reoccuring. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: God bless. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Existng topic bans on race-related issues will still be in force. Plus the fact that I've endured half a year in exile, I think that should suffice. God bless. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger:, you wrote in November at the Bonkers the Clown is indefinitely banned from nominating any article to DYK and is indefinitely banned from moving any page to mainspace unless it is approved by an uninvolved admin alternate blocking proposal at the link provided by MSGJ, Support as condition of any unblock - for reasons already rather well-stated. Are you invoking this here? Already today there have been two DYK nominations (one article moved to mainspace, and one direct mainspace creation). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Something's not quite right. "I understand where I have gone wrong and my soul has been purified, after half a year of meditation in peace". Maybe a bit much? I won't speculate on this editor's... "issues" here. Doc talk 13:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is invoked and The Bushranger did not make it clear. However, I would like to seek some good faith and just allow me to start off from where I stopped. We have too little time on Earth and too much to do. Stop the nit-picking and spread the love. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you actually want "to seek some good faith", why don't you show some to begin with? In your unblock request, you claimed you "will accept whatever penalties the community decides to impose on me." But once unblocked, you're demanding the community to "stop the nit-picking" when they want to (rightly) enforce sanctions that had earlier been agreed upon at WP:ANI. What's with the sudden change of heart? Smells like bad faith bargaining to me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Neutral third party view, since I stayed out of that ANI discussion and did not vote either for or against blocking/sanctions against BTC.

BlueMoonset - I didn't write the first part of that, it should be noted; I'd forgotten all about that kerfuffle, to be honest, if I had I'd have clarified it here. That said, Bonkers, I'd suggest that while - assuming good faith that it'd slipped your mind as well - that you refrain from any further DYK activity (and moving-to-mainspace) until you request that the community lift that sanction, as it was seperate from the block; no action on the existing ones, per AGF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Sincere apologies for forgetting something stated more than 180 days ago. I will heed your words and "refrain" from doing so, until the community has heard my case and (hopefully) realises that I wish only to do good and spread the love. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back Bonkers! Good you to see you around again just in time for an AFC backlog drive too. However, can I also echo Bushranger's comments - your edits are going to have more scrutiny and if you ever doing anything block-worthy again, it probably will be for much longer. I'm trusting you won't! I'm also assuming your apology covers your sock puppetry and understanding that doing that was just wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Lee Kuan Yew page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage

I'd pack that in right now - whilst I don't personally think it violates WP:POLEMIC, you're now in an edit war on your own userpage. Don't let your return to editing end before it's even properly begun. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I made peace with the editor before undoing his edit. See my contribs. No war. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We came to a conclusion on my user page Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - just promise me you won't carry on reverting if a third user objects! Yunshui ^雲_水 12:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Declining submissions

You are declining a lot of submissions at AfC and Draft. While checking thos submissions is a necessary task, it has to be done very carefully, and with correct and helpful reasons in the case of a decline. I have undone two declines and moved the articles to the mainspace because I believe that your declines totally misrepresented the articles. These are The Marina Affair and Michigan Cyber Range. I have serious doubts about some others as well, like Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Greeks of the Sea or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Creative Group, the Agro-Industrial Company, which doesn't read like an ad. Declining submissions for incorrect or inadequately explained reasons only baffles and discourages potential contributors, and doesn't help Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Article declined

Hello Bonkers, Please, explain me more precisely why the approval of the submitted article has been declined.

ThanksHeavyRiff (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop your work on AfC and Draft articles. You are going way too fast, not giving the articles the time they deserve, and offer completely incorrect advice to the editors involved (and too often incorrectly decline their submissions). You have now stated at User talk:HeavyRiff[1] that "It is unreferenced and reads like an advertisement.". This is about Draft:Welcome Chinese[2], an article with 16 sources including e.g. the New York Times or this article from China Daily[3]. I don't see the "advertisement" either, but that is always more of a judgment call. But telling someone that this an unreferenced article is plainly ridiculous. Fram (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: Excuse me, unreferenced does not mean entirely unreferenced. If I'm injured I only need to have just one part of myself injured, not from head to toe. Look at the many unreferenced paragraphs in the article! References are missing at so many parts. And look at the headings of the sections. I do not know why you approved it, but I disagree with your call. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"'Tis but a scratch!"

"But your honour, the victim was unharmed!" "Unharmed? Only a toe was left, the rest was shredded!" "But that toe was unharmed, and I only need to have one part unharmed to be unharmed". I don't think your reasoning is entirely correct... Fram (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Following much the same line of reasoning as Fram, I have just removed Bonkers's name from the AfC whitelist. The reviews I'm seeing from you, Bonkers, are absolutely not of sufficient quality for that project. Until you can demonstrate enough understanding of the relevant policies that we can tell you're qualified to be guiding other, newer editors, please direct your efforts somewhere else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been concern expressed from several editors that Bonkers should not even have been unblocked without community review. The problems that we are seeing on several fronts are becoming... problematic. Again. Sorry, Bonkers. Doc talk 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already dropped a note on Bushranger's talk page, as Bonkers was socking as late as 31 December last year, and I am reasonably sure Yunshui found the socking and decided he was not going to unblock Bonkers any time soon because of it. I've also had a complaint from an editor about a declined submission myself, that I am utterly convinced meets at least one criteria of WP:NMUSIC and have only not passed it myself because I personally know the band.

I am just gobsmacked by this. I had marked Bonkers down as understanding the AFC criteria. My rule is simple - if you wouldn't AFD or speedy it, pass it. Just slow down with the editing, because all it will take is one edit to ANI and all hell will break loose. Please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the band you speak of?--Launchballer 19:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rocky and the Natives Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

They seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO#C6a, but I wouldn't approve it because it's a bit messy at the moment. Ritchieandrhonda.com looks suspect given that it looks self-published - you say on your userpage that you share an IP address with a Rhondamerrick - probably you and her! And I can see no good reason for the Players section; either all members should have biographies there, or none should.--Launchballer 10:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it meets that criteria in WP:MUSICBIO but as stated I am not passing it because the submitter cited our blog, creating a potential conflict of interest (even though I've reviewed hundreds if not thousands of music / band submissions at AFC, why take the risk?) Of course it's not a reliable source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am very tempted to rollback all these closures, as it is quite clear no attempt was made to actually assess the articles, and the damage done in the form of chasing away new users could be significant. Can an AfC regular let me know if doing so will create any technical problems? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  Nevermind, AfC has reverted most of them already, so that answers that question. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Over_100_potentially_spurious_reviews_in_1_hour --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Mass replacement of content with redirects

On 4 June 2014[4], you deleted the content of many articles on primary schools in Singapore and replaced that content with redirects to Primary schools in Singapore. Your edit comments often cited WP:COMMONOUTCOMES, but this is not a policy or a guideline. Most of these pages were not the subjects of AfDs, just the first three, of which you made NACs[5][6][7]. I suggest it would be appropriate to self-revert, pending AfDs which you or others initiate. I note also that your edit comments included "There is too much primary school crap",[8] "trigger happy massacre of all crappy articles. Begone, non-notable pri. schools"[9] and "i pity whoever drummed this up but that's life",[10] that last being Saint Joseph's Institution Junior, an article created in 2005 and since worked on by tens of registered editors. It is hard to see these comments as expressing the same benign attitude you expressed in your unblock request: "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." NebY (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have rollbakced all the redirects and AfD closures. While a lot of these are probably non-notable, it is quite obvious no attempt was made to assertain which were. Additionally, the usual procedure is to merge to a more general article (school district, town), not delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-blocked

It is not conceivable that someone who:

1. does not want to risk repeating previous disruption, and
2. is capable of recognizing when they're risking disruption

would review 100 AFC pages in 68 minutes. Therefore, you are either unconcerned with repeating previous disruption, or incapable of avoiding it. I'm not sure which it is, but I don't need to know. I've thought carefully about whether yet another warning is appropriate or not, and decided that it isn't; at some point, "last chance" has to mean "last chance". You don't appear to even be trying to avoid disruption. Re-blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Reviewing 100 AFC pages is disruptive? I call cowcrap on that. Monkeys drop from vines sometimes. Just because of a few bad judgements (which can actually be justified), all my reviews get mass-rollbacked by blind editors. Last year I reviewed close to 540 articles, of which only five failed during a check by AFC reviewers. Having not edited for roughly half a year, my mind will obviously be rusty and I may miscontrue certain things. Bar me from Afc, give me a warning, that is acceptable. But to block me for "disruption"? It was never in my intent to disrupt and the fact that I sacrificed that much of my time to look at these drafts shows that I was, in good faith, wanting to alleviate the troubling situation. The reason why articles here are becoming crappier is because of lax approvals. So what if the topic itself is notable but the content and tone is crappy? Never mind that – notice how I stopped reviewing after Fram pointed out a few of my bad rejections? Did I continue to review? I did not! My decisions are justifiable, whereas your call to block me because I spent time at AfC trying to clear the backlog is not. Note that I was blocked previous NOT because of AfC. I stress that I do not think I was, and I was not, engaging in disruptive editing. May faith strive on! Praise our Saviour! --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers, you may have a point that you stopped AfC reviewing the minute somebody said what you were doing was problematic, and therefore the block might not be "preventing damage and disruption" to the degree we feared. Okay. But saying to the blocking admin "I call cowcrap on that" will just lead to rolled eyes and you staying blocked. Perhaps, just perhaps you might be able to persuade Floq, Bushranger, Yunshui, hell let's get @DangerousPanda: in here for a fourth opinion, that you promise to only edit in article space, you get a mentor (are we still doing those?) and you promise to abide by any and all topic bans you are served. Otherwise, you might as well forget about Wikipedia forever and do something else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing from my perspective. I never intended to disrupt the peace. I promise. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's almost cruel to give Bonkers the hope of being unblocked now. Bonkers is not going to get it, ever. Someone needs to just end this charade. Doc talk 10:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You have to believe, otherwise it will never happen ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You just sealed your fate, below, with the "female former lecturer" bit. Don't be socking, now. Doc talk 11:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

People get upset by a few bad AfC-related edits, forgetting about the starving kids of Africa, the wars around the world, famines, natural disasters, political turmoil, riots, global violence, etc. Where has our good faith gone? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Cry me a river. You're screwed, Bonkers. Female former lecturers? Who cares what gender a lecturer is? Or what race, for that matter? You are just so totally done. Buh-bye now. Doc talk 11:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is for certain; kalpas change. Plus, I do not think that connotes anything misogynistic. The "female" is for formal clarity. I believe in gender equality. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bonkers The Clown, it is patently untrue that out of your 540 reviews last July all but 5 passed checks by other AfC editors. Only 22 of your reviews were checked. Of those, 6 were fails, i.e. nearly 1 in 3, and note this comment from one of those checking: "You went out of your way to use a custom template so that you could make a mean remark," This editor has learned nothing since the AfC debacle in 2013. I strongly suggest that any administrator contemplating unblocking read his talk page in July 2013, and especially this section and this one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My dear female former lecturer, it is also patently untrue that I have learnt "nothing", as much as you'd like to paint this false picture to discourage magnanimous admins from unblocking the misunderstood me. In the past I would like to take snide digs at editors. I now no longer do so. I use the standard automated message churned out by AFCH. I also listen better to fellow editors. After being told off by Fram I stopped immediately, no questions asked. Being a grandmother, User:Voceditenore, why not display some compassion to a slightly younger individual like me and demonstrate good faith, for I have stressed that it was only in my sincerest intentions to ease the backlog. We have all but this lifetime, shimmering like the heart of Jupiter, and melting like a vat of peacock feathers in the fiery Sun. Much love, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this chat needs to stop now. At ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} — Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Long hair in Singapore

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Power ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Request

{{Unblock|It frustrates me so much when I try to be a better person, but my actions of goodwill get misconstrued. Just yesterday I was blocked for what was me trying to ease the backlog at AfC but repackaged as disruptive editing. That block in my humblest opinion was made in bad faith and just a means to get me to lose the good editor I really am. They ignored the fact that most of the reviews were performed well, that I was also doing other gnomish acts and pitching in constructively at AfDs, and also that I stopped immediately after getting a heads up from a fellow editor. It was never in my intentions to cause "disruption" as they'd like to paint it. The block was made in true bad faith and I hope somebody could see from a perspective of good faith and overturn such a overtly bad, harsh block. I am perfectly fine with a ban on AfC but an outright ban -- even when I stopped after getting a warning of some sort -- is gravely unacceptable to me. I am only human. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)}}

For what it's worth, I fully support this unblock. The original unblock was made out of process with no effort made to check what the cause of the block was; that Bonkers has already had a DYK in just four days shows that as a DYK editor Bonkers is a valued editor. He should have been subjected to a WP:STANDARDOFFER (which I notice that the unblocking admin mentioned but did not actually demand) plus a topic ban from AfC (which he has suggested and is happy to agree with) and he should be subjected to one now; for goodness' sake, he's already fulfilled one of the criteria on {{2nd chance}}!--Launchballer 12:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bonkers The Clown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It frustrates me so much when I try to be a better person, but my actions of goodwill get misconstrued. Just yesterday I was blocked for what was me trying to ease the backlog at AfC but repackaged as disruptive editing. That block in my humblest opinion was made in bad faith and just a means to get me to lose the good editor I really am. They ignored the fact that most of the reviews were performed well, that I was also doing other gnomish acts and pitching in constructively at AfDs, and also that I stopped immediately after getting a heads up from a fellow editor. It was never in my intentions to cause "disruption" as they'd like to paint it. The block was made in true bad faith and I hope somebody could see from a perspective of good faith and overturn such a overtly bad, harsh block. I am perfectly fine with a ban on AfC but an outright ban -- even when I stopped after getting a warning of some sort -- is gravely unacceptable to me. I am only human. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 2:06 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

You don't seem to be willing or able to admit that your actions at AfC were wrong. Accusing the blocking admin of performing the block in bad faith just makes things even worse. I see no reason to unblock you. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request 2 (with refinement of prose)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bonkers The Clown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It frustrates me so much when I try to be a better person, but my actions of goodwill get misconstrued. Just yesterday I was blocked for what was me trying to ease the backlog at AfC but repackaged as disruptive editing. That block, in my humblest opinion, was made not made in good faith and just a means to get me to lose the good editor I really am. They ignored the fact that most of the reviews were performed well, that I was also doing other gnomish acts and pitching in constructively at AfDs, and also that I stopped immediately after getting a heads up from a fellow editor. That said, of course I erred in many areas regarding the AfC fiasco and hence I am willing to receive any sanctions regarding that -- though it was never in my intentions to cause "disruption" as they'd like to paint it. The block was made in true bad faith and I hope somebody could see from a perspective of good faith and overturn such a overtly bad, harsh block. I am perfectly fine with a ban on AfC but an outright ban -- even when I stopped after getting a warning of some sort -- is unacceptable to me. I am only human. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have already had far too many second chances. Also, I have just revoked your talk page privs; if you want to appeal any further, take it to WP:UTRS. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Note that he no choice but to stop reviewing AfCs because an administrator removed his access to the reviewing tools [11] after he continued to argue with the editor who asked him to stop. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. The review button underneath move was still there and I could have still manually reviewed the articles. Time at which editor removed my so-called tools was also after I stopped reviewing, if I remember correctly. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusing Floquenbeam of bad faith is not a wise tactic if you're looking to be unblocked, Bonkers. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Besides, Bonkers, there are other things to do besides DYK and AfC. (Like, for example, vandalism reversion.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Offer to Bonkers and the community

Wikipedia has very few editors who write quality Singapore-related articles. This is what Bonkers should focus on, if the community allows him to. Perhaps he could be allowed to develop drafts in user space, which I (or other editors) would check and move to mainspace? I would even be willing to check (and post, if acceptable) articles that he develops offwiki and emails to me. Having written thirteen GAs and polished many others, I can also offer him advice on how to write quality Singapore-related articles. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not - Bonkers has caused far too much disruption, and violated too many policies already. He has amply demonstrated that he is not to be trusted. And please note that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is explicitly against policy and may result in the contributor involved also being blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a concurrent proposal on ANI right now to community ban Bonkers - perhaps you could repost this over there to keep discussion in one place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight: I agree with you in spirit but I also acknowledge the reality of the situation. I have posted my recommendation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bonkers_The_Clown. Editors like Bonkers make a good argument for a new type of ban: "Content ban" - in which the person is allowed to directly edit anything that does not appear on article pages (i.e. no editing of article-space templates, no uploading of images, no article editing, etc., but editing <noinclude> parts of templates and file description pages would be fine). Until the software is modified to make this automatically enforceable, it's not going to be feasible to enforce though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually believe he needs the opposite, that is, to stick entirely to article writing and minimise his interaction with the community. Hence my suggestion that the community allow him to develop articles offwiki, then email them to me for checking and possible posting to mainspace. To clarify, I do not intend to act as a proxy for him unless the community gives me permission to. --Hildanknight (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hildanknight. Bonkers is a prolific writer and most of his articles are of good quality. His main problem is a lack of maturity in his interaction with critics, not the content he creates. -Zanhe (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that an editor banned from article space can draft articles as a user sub-page or in Draft: -space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page

Whatever decision is reached here, Bonkers is not welcome at AFC! Bonkers has done a lot of damage there on at least two separate occasion either side of his previous block, damage that has certainly affected new editors' experience of the Wikipedia community. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite ban on the clown reviewing (or otherwise acting upon) any submission at AfC, but I am also wondering who appointed you to speak on behalf of the AfC project? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to nit-pick about this? IMHO Bonkers is the worst "reviewer" ever at AFC - there's no way he will be welcomed back to do reviews. If you really want to make an issue of this I will AGF and so I am starting a topic about is at the AFC Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Worse than Arctic Kangaroo? Worse than JustBerry? Did the clown use MfD on submissions that he didn't like, all the same day, and then edit-war against people that tried to close the clearly spurious MfDs, also all the same day again? Did the clown do this hundreds of times? You have a hell of a standard of "worst ever" to establish here, so you had better have something to live up to that bizarre claim. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to courtesy blank user page

I could technically do this myself but I am asking for admin help because editing a blocked user's user page (especially a user with no talk page access) under the specific circumstances that this user is blocked may be controversial, so it is best left to an administrator.

Because the user page is somewhat confusing at first glance - specifically

• at "just a glance" it looks like an article page even though it is clearly not one if you read it closely
• the template {{User WWA|User talk:Bonkers The Clown}} displays in a way that suggest that this editor is a notable individual,

I recommend that EITHER

• the page be {{courtesy blank}}ed, with a note added that the previous content can be found in the edit history

OR

• that the line

 {{User WWA|User talk:Bonkers The Clown}}

be changed to

 {{User WWA|User talk:Bonkers The Clown}}

AND

• that the {{userpage}} line be moved to the top of the page.

Please put something in the edit summary indicating this was done by an administrator. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that it should at least be blanked. I'm still not sure why Floquenbeam reverted the reversion to the socking message that had been placed on the page when Bonkers socked in December 2013 and was blocked for it at year's end (the block came off in five months rather than the standard six, something that still puzzles me); since he flunked the standard offer in a few days, aren't we in a block for all the past reasons, which include sockpuppetry? Or are those infractions wiped clean by the new block? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch it unless Bonkers himself asks. Otherwise there's not much "courtesy" in the blanking. It's survived 2 MfDs already. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been reviewed by an admin. For anything urgent, see WP:ANI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Good work . . .

. . . here! Writegeist (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your mail

Bonkers, thank you for that nice message. But you know I can't go and unblock you, even if I were as sweet as some people think. You may have noticed that someone *gasp* messed with your user page last night, and I have protected it from such rascals. I also had to remove a bit of code since it interfered with my admin functionality (the drop-down menus); my apologies. Perhaps a smarter admin can fix that; I can't. I wish you a lovely summer holiday, and I don't think I need to tell you that the only way you'll be allowed back into this Garden of Eden is by not socking and all those things. All the best, and thank you for your positive contributions. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Bonkers,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Dick Lugar official photo 2010.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 17, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-09-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

miss you, cleaned up a bit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salem Ali Qatan

The article Salem Ali Qatan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. One edit in the past five years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Salem Ali Qatan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salem Ali Qatan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Ali Qatan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Christina Ong moved to draftspace

Please refer to log comments. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christina Ong

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Christina Ong, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Attack of the Flesh Devouring Space Worms from Outer Space

The article Attack of the Flesh Devouring Space Worms from Outer Space has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. Searching brings up a few hits where the title is mentioned, but I can not find any full length reviews in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Attack of the Flesh Devouring Space Worms from Outer Space

The article Attack of the Flesh Devouring Space Worms from Outer Space has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Gigger, Jr.

The article Richard Gigger, Jr. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability criteria

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Xiaxue

Xiaxue has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Vaticidalprophet 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)