Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

• This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
• Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
• Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
• Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
• See meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
• See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
• See WP:OS for oversight.

reason of delete

I've create this mediawiki message (copy from en :-)). what we think about? It's ok? --vector ^_^ (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fun to see my additions to the mediawiki code go live finally! - Huji ^reply 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think, we should put the links after the comments, not before them. - Huji ^reply 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

what do you think? --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the talk page again to see what I had in mind. - Huji ^reply 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

From experience on en.wp, I know people usually put the policy link before the comments. However, I have seen it done the other way, so I think either way is fine. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, isn't there one for blocking too. Oysterguitarist 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

I would like to request that the Main Page get full protection, it is very high risk. JetLover ^Bam! 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A poll was/is conducted, the current results are a tie between semi and full protection. The poll is in Archive 5. I already added your vote to the full protection section given your comment here. The page is currently protected Edit-registered user, Move- admin. -- Creol(talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gadgets

I tried my best to import the En WP Gadgets to our wiki, but I didn't have the time to test it thoroughly. Can some other admin please review it and make the requried fixes? - Huji ^reply 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

External link into new window works perfectly. Just tried it. -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest longer block

User:Inherendo has made pretty much nothing but trouble. He inserts vandalism and other malicious content into articles. He is currently blocked for two weeks, I would suggest a few months or indefinite. JetLover ^Bam! 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The user has been here a total of a week and a half and racked up his 3rd block (extended to a 2 week block in place of a one week). While there have been a few constructive edits from him, the bulk of his edits are vandalism or non-notable. That being said, any longer block short of just shutting down this account (infinite/indefinite) really serves little purpose without checking further into the problem (wp:beans for the why). The next occurrence looks like it will be a permanent block and may require action from Eptalon or myself in special capacity but currently there is no case for us to justify that action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creol (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that this user should've gotten the indefinite ban a while ago, when he was banned the second time. At that time, I noticed that he was making mostly vandalous edits, and usually, for vandal-only accounts, you usually get an indefinite ban for that. -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ionas68224 ban violation

I took a look at User:Liberator and noticed that he seemed to fit the profile of Ionas68224. Took a look on Commons and he's caused trouble for pushing his POV - which I imagine would be quite challenging on a media library. I found an IP that he'd redirected to his page, ran a WHOIS check and tracked it down to his ISP in his area. Can't be anyone else. Blocked User:Liberator and User:Liberator1 indefinitely, email blocked.

Ionas68224 is currently banned for repeatedly vandalising/sockpuppeting despite more chances than we've ever given anyone before. We offered to review his ban at the end of this year, but I personally believe this behaviour shows that he has't changed a bit - any other thoughts?

To Ionas68224 (as I guess you're reading this), do not attempt to create any further sockpuppets. This will only make things more difficult to sort out. You are not required to respond. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request for check user, to see if there are any more sockpuppets. Oysterguitarist 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Having been both welcomed to SEWP by Ionas and a victim User:Liberator's personal attacks I agree with extending the ban from one year to indefinite. It seems obvious he has no wish to change or control an underlying desire to cause harm here at SEWP. A note should be left on the WP:RFA page to show why his vote opposing user:lights will be struck out. -- Barliner  talk  21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked a large range (68.224.0.0 - 68.224.127.255) just in case. Shouldn't be any collateral damage really, but it's set for 2 weeks, extendable if necessary. Archer7 - talk 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bio of Living People

I just noticed an article which I think is doubtful according to the BLP: Biographies of Living People policy. The jetsetter Charlotte Lindström sits in jail awaiting trial. Lots of other people in the same situation do not have, or need, articles here. Lindström is apparently "notable" for just this one thing. This article is (originally poorly) translated from Swedish Wikipedia and well-enough referenced. The "What links here" is revealing; the author says s/he is unpopular on English Wikipedia and tries to get others to copy the article there for her/him. --Hordaland 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be in keeping with the BLP policy (specifically the section on relatively unknown people) give the subject being prominent reported in at least 22 news articles from all across Australia (and one from Sweden). You may try requesting its deletion on notability grounds though. -- Creol(talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Added note to all admins:

I think a bigger problem here is with our source of the article. Sinbad has a habit of requesting people copy his articles over to En:WP. He has stated in the past that this is because he thinks it would be better coming from a more established editor. The truth is, He is blocked on En:. He has been blocked under two names a total of 7 times. Most of this revolves around BLP issues with Swedish "celebrities" (mainly big brother contestants it seems). His original blocks were under the name Matrix17 and included bad faith afd noms, incivility, harassment, non-notable bios recreation, and impersonating an admin. He got unblocked and had his name changed to Zingostar where he was blocked another 3 times for sock voting (afd of nn swede celeb bio. Imagine that..), harassment, wiki-stalking and general problems with following BLP. Given his past and his current actions here, I think we need to keep a little extra attention on his actions to prevent this from taking place here as well. -- Creol(talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you here Creol. His actions need more attention than most other users on here mainly because of the fact that he has been blocked 7 times. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Even though I'm not an admin, I've been pretty interested in Sinbad, so I will help keep an eye on him as well, if needs be.)

Hello

I am a native speaker of English, and have worked on Wikipedia before. However, I am new to the simple wikipedia. I noticed something, and it may be very little, that I think is slightly important. When you type in the name of a page which does not exist, it gives you the option to 'create this page'. I think it would be more sensible to instead say 'make this page'. 'Make' is a word synonymous with 'create', and it is often taught in language learning before the word 'create'. Therefore, would it not follow more logic to use that? Is there a way to change it to that? And am i even saying this on the right page? lol Iamandrewrice 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to change such things, but only Administrators can do it. I didn't find the text you meant, so could you please just paste it here, so I can find it and update it? - Huji ^reply 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a possibility: Wikipedia does not have an article with this name. You may want to search for Colder on Simple English Wikipedia before creating the article, to check if the article has already been created with a different spelling.

To start a fair, truthful encyclopedia article, just type in the box below. You can click the "Show preview" button to see how it looks, at any time before you save it. When you are finished, just click "Save page". To learn more about creating and writing articles, read the instructions or check the links listed in Wikipedia:Useful. If you want to make test changes, please use the sandbox. If you have just created a page here, you might not be able to see it yet because it takes a while for the database to update; please wait a few minutes and click this link. If a page used to be here with the same name, it will be listed below here. Razorflame 19:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah yeah thats the one ^_^ it seems to me as if its just the same as from the original English wikipedia. I thought it might be a little wordy, considering the target audience. (sorry if i wrote this thread in the wrong place) Happy nu year everyone btw x Iamandrewrice 10:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

here is the message that comes up on normal wikipedia when you type in a page that does not yet exist and click 'go':

No page with that title exists.

You can search again:

Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive, except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
See all pages that begin with this prefix.
See all pages within Wikipedia that link to this page.
See Wikipedia:Searching for more search tips.
You can create this article:

Read Wikipedia:Your first article.
Gather references to the source(s) of your information.
Create the page including your references.
Or you can request that this page be created.
(it wasnt in red by the way)

and then this is what comes up on simple wikipedia:

There is no page titled "Asfasf". You can create this page.

Sorry, there were no exact matches to your query.

It seems that not only is the wording not basic enough, but perhaps not all the features that should be included are... Iamandrewrice 10:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. MediaWiki:Newarticletext is updated. - Huji ^reply 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning is updated accordingly too. - Huji ^reply 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

About welcome messages

Section moved to Simple talk as it has nothing to do with Administrators. -- Creol(talk) 18:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Iamandrewrice ban

New user User:Iamandrewrice is currently a banned user on EN. Looking at the admin noticeboard discussion, I think this ban should be extended over here.

The default policy for this is that we choose which bans to enforce from other wikis, unless it's a formal ban from Jimbo Wales. I think this should be one to enforce over here. This involved creating sockpuppets and using meatpuppets, and showing off to admins that he was evading their blocks etc etc. This was only a short time ago, so I think it's a bit early to ignore it. My other concern is that the other people involved are gonna be over here before long as well.

I am usually in favour of second chances for banned users on EN, but in this case I think we should ban over here too. Archer7 - talk 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Give this user a chance. We will keep a close eye on him like we are doing for Sinbad Razorflame 18:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok firstly, the disputes with that are still ongoing.. and actually the reason I am banned is because people hacked onto my account... and secondly, i was TOLD to come here to edit until I am unblocked on the other one. All my edits have been constructive... you have not reason to ban me Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Having checked his history and mentoring at ENWP I agree with Archer7. Further this is not a sandbox to improve your behaviour for ENWP. --Bärliner 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was TOLD to come here by members of wikipedia until my whole ban thing has been sorted out!!!!! The reason I have been banned as a user was because people were impersonating my account, which is why the whole thing is still ongoing there. Have I done a single thing wrong so far??? Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to where they told you to come over here? They shouldn't have done that under any circumstances. Archer7 - talk 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban is needed. Definitely. I agree with everything Archer7 has said. I've read the en:WP talk and this user needs it. Razorflame 18:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the latest discussion (which i am trying to look for the link to) you will realise that even wikipedia now realises that other people were pretending to be me and logging onto my account! Many people got upset by it, and we are waiting for the whole thing to blow over... but until then, I have been told that I should edit here by two respected wikipedians. If you disagree with their decision, argue it out with them! Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem????? have I done a SINGLE thing wrong????? "Why not try Simple Wikipedia http://simple.wikipedia.org ? It's not enwiki but no one is saying you can't edit other wikis than enwiki and there are plenty of opportunities for you to learn there since they basically use the same policies." is what one of the users told me... i have deleted the message from the other one, but have informed him now of what you are doing, and I am sure he will message here soon... he hasnt yet replied to my email, so I dont know how long he will take to pick it up. I am certainly not going to stand for this. If you block me from this site after all the edits I put in, simply because on ENWikipedia, i am on a timeout because people are scared about who was impersonating me, then I will take this to Jimbo Wales. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This only proves that you haven't learned anything from en:WP Razorflame 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect me to do? you are telling me you want to block me simply because someone hacked into my old account??? and omg, Jeff isnt replying... if you look at my edits, not one of them has been disruptive! you are all creating more disruption by doing this! rather than let me get on with my edits... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the thread which proves my account was hacked! Wikipedia says its ok... so i don't see why you dont: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=180702107#Apology

Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's a pretty complicated mess of things. I'm now undecided whether to ban or not. We've dealt with people that have admitted to doing stupid things and that they've changed, and they cause the same trouble again. However, this does appear to be the sort of small dispute between friends that we see quite often, except this one got pretty big. I suggest everyone else takes the time to read through that incredibly long discussion and work out what you think about it all. Archer7 - talk 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for taking the time to read it Archer, I respect that. If you look at my contributions, you will see that they have all been in good faith. Keep an eye on me by all means, but if I was really a vandal who was trying to conceal my identity, would I have stated that I was a banned user there on my user page here? Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• About 90 accounts tagged as either confirmed or suspected sockpuppets, a checkuser nightmare trying to sort out multiple abuse issues (either sock or meat puppets really doesn't matter), past harassment and legal threat issues, community banned, and currently in violation of the deal made to stop them from being reported to their school and ISP ("The deal is this: Ben and his friends stop posting all together, they apologize here in this space for what they did, and they stop editing Wikipedia all together." - Jeffpw (his mentor). Stop editing Wikipedia entirely - not stop editing there, but wikipedia entirely. Simple.Wikipedia.org. Reviewing the AN/I, talk pages, checkuser requests and this "proof the account was hacked" (which in no way proves the account was hacked.. and further goes to show the strength of support there for a community ban), I have to agree with a similar ban here. Should En:wp at some time in the future deem to end the community ban (as it is claimed they are considering, but no proof to that effect), then we could follow suit. -- Creol(talk) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the thread proves how stupid you have been, it does not say you are trustworthy and many contributors are against you getting back. It also says that you promised not to post. As you have violated this agreement I see no reason to change my mind. Wait out ENWP sorting out the mess you got yourself into. --Bärliner 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

hahaha... god you dont know how stupid that made you sound creol. I have not violated the conditions... you say Jeff says to stop editing wikipedia? HE WAS THE ONE THAT TOLD ME TO EDIT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i have emailed him about the situation here as a matter of fact, and he is due to reply soon, and will probably post on here too. He is a very respected editor, and if you choose to argue against both of us, it is just blatant homophobia. And the checkuser didnt work... all of them ackknowledge that, as Alex (one of the people who logged onto my account) lives at my house, and logged in from mine, Joe's AND the School. So that is how all the accounts got linked. I was not the one that caused the problems... it was my friends (Joe, Alex, Andrew and Craig... although Craig is a friend of Joe and Alex, not mine) that hacked onto my account and adopted my identity that did it. Everyone recognises that apart from you creol... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still for ban. Razorflame 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you????? are you all just homophobes or something????????????? i have been editing here in good faith... NOT ONE single bit of trouble! just let me get on with my editing! that is what I am here for! NOT to suffer homophobia from you lot! Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, can we calm it down once again here, please try not to get too caught up in all this. First of all (sorry, but I've got to ask this), how are we homophobic? Homophobic behaviour is definitely not allowed here, so if anything has said anything we can sort it out. This discussion is not yet over, so let's wait for things to be worked out.

Archer7 - talk 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't be more against you calling us homophobes. That's outrageous. I know it sounds all "mightier than thou" but I'll block you myself tomorrow (if I get admin position) if you ever call anyone a homophobe here again unless they show blatant proof that they may be homophobes.

Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying you are going against what both I AND Jeff say, even though he is a notable wikipedian, then simply by drawing a link between us, the only reason you could want to be opposed to both of us would be a homophobic one. However, EconomicsGuy, a user from wikipedia, also gave me persmission to edit here. I do not want to cause trouble here, and my friends dont know about my account this time, so they wont bother trying to hack onto this, or impersonate me... so basically the same things wont happen again. All I want is to be part of the community and work towards a common goal - building an encyclopedia... not argue about whose fault it was that I got banned last time, we are living in the present, not the past... i am not doing anything wrong... if I do do anything wrong, then deal with it as you will then, but there is currently nothing suggesting that I am a problem here... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We can draw a link if we don't agree with their view of the topic, without being homophobic. Users from EN cannot give you automatic permission to edit here, we (as a community) are the only people who decide which bans are enforced. It seems to me that no-one can be quite sure about what's gone on (and I think there's a little more than you've admitted according to CheckUser results). We now need to try and work out your motives for coming here, because we've dealt with a lot of people that lie, and cover up their actions with good edits to avoid suspicion. I'm not accusing you of that, but we need to take a careful look to assess the situation for ourselves. Archer7 - talk 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally against your block here, and unless you vandalise here, I'll stand for you not being blocked. You don't need to have Jeff or EconomicsGuy's word to make me think that you should have a second chance to build an encyclopedia, but calling us homophobes is grossly out of place.

Just because we oppose you doesn't need that we hate gay people. If someone doesn't like someone else, it doesn't automatically have to be a hate-crime, it could just be because that person in particular is simply not a very nice person.

Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, its just so annoying that the moment I try to come here, you want to ban me because of what my friends did to me. I will run you through step by step the whole situation:

• I made an account on original wikipedia
• I edited constructively with this, although having said that i struggled at first, but I got there
• I was adopted by Jeffpw, who helped me get there
• However, my friends (the ones listed above) hacked into my account...
• They had their own account, and I was angry with them for hacking into mine, so I lied to Jeffpw and said that their accounts were sockpuppets of mine, even though they werent.
• This lead to all of us getting blocked, as they thought that we were one person who was sockpuppeting.
• My friends got annoyed with me that they were blocked because I lied, so they made dozens and dozens of sockpuppets to try and get back at me, pretending they were me, so my reputation on wikipedia would be ruined. This did in effect work.
• In the meantime, Jeff emailed me and I explained what was happening... and he believed me... but the trouble is that my friends had caused so much disruption pretending to be me, that no one else could be bothered.
• However, in the end, it became so big, that everyone got angry, and my friends finally decided to stop (which was when we said everything in that apology link I left)
• Wikipedia has left me banned officially for a while, but they have said that I should come edit here to prove that I want to edit constructively, and then I will be able to go back sooner.

Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing I don't really get... " was angry with them for hacking into mine, so I lied to Jeffpw and said that their accounts were sockpuppets of mine, even though they werent."

You punished your friends by taking the fall for them?...

Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My 'friends' had accounts of their own. They then found my password and hacked onto mine and started editing pretending to be me. I got angry, so said to Jeffpw that their real accounts were mine, so that they would get blocked... this was stupid, and I have appologized countless times for lying. However, all the main trouble then started when my friends made all the other accounts pretending to be me and disrupted everything. However, because one of the friends used Joe's, mine, and the schools IP addresses to log in with, we all got linked, as well as countless other accounts that other random people at school were using... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But if you have "allies" like Jeff and EconomicsGuy, who presuming what you said is true, are respectable editors at en, why can't they root for you?
Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole wikipedian (well most of it) believe me now anyway... but in order to completely prove that I do want to edit constructively, they want me to edit on here to show that... because they have no way of knowing whether I am the same person as my friends... so they want me to prove that I am the one that edits constructively... and that my friends were not meBen.(Talk).(Changes) 20:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll need to talk to these people. Simple English is not a place to dump people to be looked after by us if they judge them as too risky for their project. I've no objection to you editing here if it looks like you'll edit constructively with no problems, but working out whether you will or not is difficult. Archer7 - talk 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've (admittedly rather quickly) read over that huge block of text on en and have come to the conclusion that if your stories are true, you should be allowed to edit here for a certain amount of time until admins on en see that the vandalism and sockpuppets couldn't have been you. But you'll need to win over the other editors here, one person, thankfully, can't make such an important decision alone.

However you'll be banned indefinitely from this wiki if you vandalise even once or create just one sockpuppet here. That's my view and I'm standing by it, you'll just have to get the others to believe you and START EDITING NOW rather than waiting for replies here!

Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Look do you want me to give you my email address so you can email me and I can send you their Email adresses? And look... I have done nothing to suggest disruption so far... if at some point in the future I did vandalize or disrupt, then block/ban me then, but without any evidence to suggest I have, I dont understand why there is a valid reason. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote?..

I said that if you edit here constructively, you'll be allowed to stay. But at the first sign of you creating sockpuppets then you'll be blocked. It's fair for both of us. If you say you didn't create those accounts then you should have no trouble not creating any here and just editing constructively.

Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing your signature colors. I currently am undecided in this matter. I am leaning towards letting you prove yourself on here again. Razorflame 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not going to create a sockpuppet here! So far every single thing I have done has been constructive... can you assume good faith?? Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you take the trouble to read what I write??
I'm saying that if ever you do, you'll be blocked! It's a hypothetical situation and I'm not being prejudice!
If you want me to lay it out any less complicated then ask and I'll write it out for a fourth time using words of maximum 2 syllables.
Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We carefully consider each case that comes over to use from EN if they are banned over there. We are particularly concerned about sockpuppets. Right now, we can't prove whether or not your story is correct. We as a community decide whether to enforce bans from EN over here. This is purely based on the EN activity, not activity over here. Archer7 - talk 21:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes I understand gwib. and archer, what exactly do you expect me to do? According to 'my' activity on EN, I was a complete disruption and a vandal, because half the stuff recorded about me was actually about my friends. However, if you do go back further to when I was still in control of my account, you will see that all my edits were constructive. If you look at my edits here, they have been constructive. Even look at the styles of writing between the vandalistic accounts that were claimed to be 'me' on EN... and you will see that they are completely different from how I am writing here, and from how my account on EN originally wrote before it was hacked. what is going to happen? Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd taken just 5 minutes out of your busy busy schedule, you would have seen in my past three messages that I told you excactly what you should do.
I'm not going to type it out again, read my other messages to see what I think you should do or keep asking the same questions over and over to which you already have the answers
Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Im going to continue with my contributions. however, what I am talking about is the fact that archer is saying how I cannot be trusted from what happened on EN... and it doesnt have anything to do with what Ive done on here... I shall continue with my edits on here...Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"I've no objection to you editing here if it looks like you'll edit constructively with no problems". That's what Archer wrote just before.

He obviously doesn't have any problems with you editing here, but you've just said the complete opposite. Maybe you should read what people write about you. It'll help.

Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere with this discussion now, we need to wait for everyone else's opinions on the matter and then work out what the overall consensus is from there. Archer7 - talk 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One last point Iamandrewrice, if hacking your account was the problem on ENWP, make sure that here you have a different and unhackable password. --Bärliner 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you barliner, I actually forgot to use a different password... I will change it now... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• If I may interject here. I am also Jeffpw on the en.Wikipedia. I was Iamandrewrice's adopter there, and have remained in contact with him since he was banned from the site. I can confirm that I told him to try editing here, so that he could build up a history of quality contributing should he ever try to have the ban on the English wiki rescinded. Frankly I am both impressed with him for being so honest and upfront with everyone abouyt his history at the other site, and disappointed at the reaction here about it. I would hope that people could assume a bit of good faith and judge him on the edits he makes here, and not what happened elsewhere.

• Iamandrewrice learned a lot from his experience on our site, and I think he is a better person and editor for it. I sincerely think he could make a positive contribution here. If the administrators here are willing to give him a chance, I would be willing to mentor him here, as I did there. Please give it your consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on the other Wikipedia. Jeffpw 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Hello Jeffpw, and thanks for confirming your identity. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us to make sense of situations like this, as we were not involved at all. Simple has problems with many banned users that come over here to try and continue causing trouble, posing as good users. We are therefore very cautious, and it is the community policy to review all users banned on EN before allowing them to edit here because there are just too many people doing it. It is not that we do not want to have him here as a constructive editor, more that we have few admins and a lot of EN rejects/trolls and in the past we've found it overwhelming. We do not know all the details of this case and what evidence there is to support the story given by User:Iamandrewrice. The idea that troubles me is that you told him to come here rather than requesting that the community give him a trial period over there. I get the feeling that we are a dumping ground for editors that people view as "too risky" for your project, and we simply cannot act in such a capacity - EN has far more resources to deal with distrusted users. We will of course welcome Iamandrewrice as soon as we can build up a proper picture of him, but I do not like the idea that we are left to deal with users that others do not wish to handle. Your offer of mentoring obviously shows that you are willing to take the time, so this is not so much directed at you, but the overall EN community if it comes down to "prove you're OK, but not here". Having heard your support for him, I'm now in favour of letting him in, but please understand that we simply cannot accept all the banned users that come over to us. Nine times out of ten, we will grant second chances and allow banned users, but we must assess the potential risk, otherwise we cannot cope. Archer7 - talk 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Archer. I look forward to settling in here, and giving Ben the assistance he needs to become a positively contributing Wikipedian. HIs ban on the English Wikipedia is until June of 2009, though with the possibility (however remote) of early parole under mentorship. My hope is that if he settles in here and sees what he can contribute, he will enjoy himself enough that he sees this site as his permanent home, and not a proving ground for a return to his old home. Jeffpw 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and we hope you'll enjoy your time here as well, your assistance will be most welcome. Archer7 - talk 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I offer to co-mentor Ben. I'm EconomicsGuy on Enwiki and I along with Jeff encouraged Ben to create an account here. He's a good editor who got into a whole lot of trouble on Enwiki but from my conversations with him I trust him and will be available for assistance if required. Ultimately it's up to Ben if he wants my help here in addition to Jeff's mentorship but this community should rest assured that Ben is being watched closely. Unfortunately I was unavailable last night and failed to spot this since I was running a rather large job in Autowikibrowser on enwiki. I will make sure that doesn't happen again. From my e-mail conversations with him he understands the terms completely. I'm available to answer any questions you might have. EconomicsGuy 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a nifty little thing to help (add your name to it, where you think it should be) Iamandrewrice can't vote. Sign your name where you think you belong. Support means for banning. Against means against banning.:

Support:

Against:

• Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - however at the first sign of vandalism or sockpuppetry I vote for an indefinite ban
• Same reason as per Gwib, with this added condition: Anymore homophobic talk and I vote indef ban. Razorflame 22:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I am against the ban since users thrown out of other wikis should be given a "second chance" to join another wiki. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I still have some concerns, but having considered everything I now think it's probably for the best to give him a chance. Archer7 - talk 23:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think the user should be given a second chance, as long as no rules are broken. Oysterguitarist 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• User should be given a second chance, however if the user vandalizes/creates sockpuppets, I'd support a ban. ☆ Lights (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Calling us "homophobes", and calling English Wikipedia the "original" Wikipedia (which means, Simple English is not original) makes me really worry if there is any chance for him to stop disruption. This is the last chance given to this user. I expect every administrator to consider this, and as soon as there is any more disruption, bad speech, vandalism, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or any thing else which harms the community, a ban should be considered. - Huji ^reply 08:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - While I understand concerns about vandalism, sockpuppets, etc, and support monitoring of Ben's account for trouble, calling the English language Wikipedia should not be construed as controversial or offensive, since your own article on this site uses the exact same term to describe it. No offense was intended, I am sure. Jeffpw 09:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed that page too. By the way, I'm counting on your mentorship, seriously - Huji ^reply 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am against banning a user on sight - Sorry, I am just back from a wikibreak, and have not read through all of the material above. That said, I think the same rules should apply to Iamandrewrice as to any other user, namely:
  • No sockpuppetry; Iamandrewrice, you are responsible to chose a password in such a way that your account does not get hacked. You also do not need more than one account to edit here.
  • Constructive edits - keep in mind though that the language here is simpler than that of EnWP; most of the time unsimple/complex articles copied over from EnWP do not survive long.
  • For the ease of contacting you, please set an email address in your profile; do not post it anywhere.

  Otherwise, have fun editing.--Eptalon 15:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Razorflame 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you guys. And even once (presuming I will be) I am unbanned on ENwikipedia, I will still in fact contribute here, as I see it as a small community that is far more in need of work ^^ ... and the idea of such a small community is quite nice. However, I would like to see simple wiki promoted more on ENwikipedia, as I fear that there are not enough readers of this site as there should be... as suggested on Gwib's talk page by a member of ENwiki, I think that would be a good idea... Also, I am sorry I called you homophobes, I said it in a flush of anger at the fact that you wanted to ban me before I'd even started, which I could not understand, but I'm sorry... Also, I did not mean any offence by calling ENwiki the original wiki... it was just that that was the original wikipedia that I edited on, and also, I thought that it was created before this one, but sorry if that is incorrect. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gay

Why has this article been locked from editing? Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 10:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected (only registered users with accounts at least a few days old can edit it) because it was a constant target for vandalism. As your account is just at 2 days old, you should be able to edit is in a day or two. If there are any emergency changes needed to it that can not wait two days, note them on the articles talk and request someone make the changes. You could also copy the article to a subpage on your user space and make the changes there and either wait the two days (or if urgent, request someone make the change). -- Creol(talk) 11:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing urgent... i'll wait it out. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 11:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

sign

we have a new choise :D. opinion? --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question.

Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether users and/or IP addresses should have a link to their talk page (and/or contributionschanges; that's a possibility even though it's not there as shipped) by default. —Random832 (t/c/e) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks for making it clear.

Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Settings wording

Text referring to "recent changes" (Mediawiki:Prefs-rc, Mediawiki:tog-usenewrc, Mediawiki:tog-hideminor, etc) should be changed to refer to "new changes". There may be other changes to be made, is there a place [other than here] to discuss simplification/changes to the interface? —Random832 (t/c/e) 15:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In general the preferences/settings interface doesn't seem to be in simple english at all. Some of these things (such as math rendering) are highly specialized anyway, but a lot of them aren't —Random832 (t/c/e) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The math settings could include examples; will images or math tags render in the option labels? And, I've never understood what "Recommended for modern browsers" means anyway, simple english or otherwise (or, at least - it's clear what it means, but not what the option _is_). —Random832 (t/c/e) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)