User talk:EricBarbour

You want to fix this "encyclopedia"? I posted some of the requirements on Wikipedia Review many months ago. For reference, I will repost and expand them here.

1. Jimbo Wales has to leave. He should turn over the server admin passwords to a professional, responsible IT person who is salaried by the WMF.

2. Said IT professional has to make some major changes to the MediaWiki system currently hosting WP. Changes would include but not be limited to:

  a. BLPs must be heavily restricted and protected, or better yet, removed entirely.

  b. A proper set of guidelines for editing and administration should be enacted AND ADHERED TO. 
     This would include limitations on the powers of all administrators, and requirements for editors to be
     personally responsible for whatever they do on the wiki. No more IP-address editing. Anyone seeking
     to write for WP must apply and be approved. NO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18. "Assume good faith" my ass.

  c. ALL administrators must be elected by OPEN BALLOT, by the editors whose work they oversee.

3. Most critical to the project's success: certain untrustworthy administrators MUST BE REMOVED and banned from WP PERMANENTLY. This would include but not be limited to:

   FT2
   Durova
   David Gerard
   JzG
   MONGO
   Jayjg
   Elonka
   Jaakobou
   Raul654

Either make drastic changes, or Wikipedia will continue to decline.

Eric Barbour (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Lar has asked I leave a note explaining my block, which I didn't do originally as I presumed you wouldn't be checking your talk page. You have made your intentions to no longer edit constructively very clear on your talk page and your account has only been used to post links to WR. I feel this constitutes Disruptive editing as it is not forwarding the goal of the project to create an encyclopedia. In the future if you wish to resume constructively editing I will gladly unblock you. BJ^Talk 20:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I would like to be unblocked. My intention is, and has always been, not to vandalize or cause problems. The only reason I would post to a user's talk page is to inform them that they were being discussed at Wikipedia Review. WP users deserve to know that a discussion is taking place focused on their on-wiki activities, and because there is no mechanism for automatic notification, someone has to do it manually.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I do not agree with Eric on many things but I do think that notifying people, neutrally, is a good and useful thing and not disruptive. Eric, please do not bait people the way you did Calton... were it not for that I doubt this issue would have arisen. Unblock request granted. I will let Bjweeks know.

Request handled by: ++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

++Lar: t/c 03:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

You may find this about Wikipedia Review interesting. If not, sorry to bother you. -- Noroton (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your offsite attack

Regarding this [1]:

I've already been de-adminned. That happened four months ago. What the hell else do you expect to happen to me?

Are you expecting me to be permanently banned from Wikipedia because I made so many fuckups as an admin back in January? Are you expecting my ISP to block me for all of that mess?

For your information, I haven't even been editing all that much in the last two months. I figure someone else can write the articles. Why in the hell should I waste my time editing Wikipedia at this point?

I don't exactly know what the hell you're getting at here, except maybe you're having fun repeatedly bashing me on Wikipedia Review.

Oh, and by the way, if I'm only 13 years old, you should come up with an explanation of how I've been able to drive all over Minnesota to take pictures of worthless things like sunken ships and old houses. Oh, wait, you could care less about the articles.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I did not bash you---you bashed yourself. Eric Barbour (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin was not banned

In a recent post you have said that SlimVirgin was banned for six months.[2] She was temporarily desysoped for six months by an arbcom motion, and edited during that six months. Could you please correct yourself? Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement

I have restored it; I took the liberty of rephrasing "SV is trying to sabotage" to "SV appears to be trying to sabotage". I cannot see that anyone could possibly be so anal as to think this is a personal attack now. If it is removed, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight and Checkuser Election 2009 votes

I just wanted to let you know that I have had to remove your votes from the elections as you did not have the required number of votes. These requirements are that and editor has to have 150 mainspace edits before June 15. You only had 134 edits on this date so unfortunately you are not eligible to vote. I have however left your comments there. I hope youll return for whenever the next elections are. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban discussion

A proposal to reinstate your community ban has been proposed here Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, Mark. I'm laughing. Eric Barbour (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]