Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 7

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)

"original" can simply mean "first", and it is true that en.wikipedia was created before any of the other language versions; this is probably what was meant both by Ben and by whoever put that in the article. —Random832 (t/c/e) 15:31, 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)

Interface wording

Settings

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)

There is no better place to discuss them. But please keep every topic separated. - Huji ^reply 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have changed the settings as requested; while we are at it, where do you change the "This is a minor edit" at the bottom of the edit box? - I would prefer to see "small change" there.. --Eptalon 15:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Allmessages is us eful for finding these (there are probably others mentioning "Recent changes" that I didn't list) - the specific one you just mentioned is Mediawiki:minoredit, and if you're going to standardize on "small change" instead of "minor edit" you may want to change mediawiki:minoreditletter (which is the m in lists of changes like history etc) to "s" as well (and there are, again, numerous places in the interface that talk about these that will need to be changed. The list of all messages is very helpful for this). —Random832 (t/c/e) 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done changed minor edit to small change. I think we should leave the letter m, for recognizability. --Eptalon 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We should. - Huji ^reply 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Alreadyrolled needs to be changed so where it says edit it should say change. Oysterguitarist 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done ☆ Lights (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Math settings

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)

list of pages still containing non-simple wording

Messages visible to ordinary users (mostly, I've left out references to "recent changes" in checkuser and bureaucrat [e.g. makebot] pages) that

• still contain "recent changes":
  • mediawiki:addedwatchtext
  • mediawiki:recentchangescount
  • mediawiki:recentchangesdays
  • mediawiki:tooltip-n-recentchanges
  • mediawiki:tooltip-t-recentchangeslinked
• still contain "minor edit":
  • mediawiki:histlegend (it's explaining what m means, but it should point out that this is what the small change box does)
  • mediawiki:rcshowhideminor (appears on new changes)
  • mediawiki:tog-minordefault
  • mediawiki:tog-watchlisthideminor (appears in settings)
  • mediawiki:tooltip-minoredit
  • mediawiki:watchlist-hide-minor (appears on the watchlist)
  • mediawiki:watchlist-show-minor (on the watchlist)

—Random832 (t/c/e) 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done ☆ Lights (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

new type of protection

Hello everybody, we have a new type of protection, a create protection. I have just protected all the pages and now are in this special page :-D --vector ^_^ (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the "Title Blacklist" extension enabled as en does? That would be a better way to block the pages ending in slash or index.php —Random832 (t/c/e) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have added it, but it does not seem to be working, if somebody could check it, thanks Oysterguitarist 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Logged in, I tried creating HAGGER123 and it didn't say anything about it being blacklisted. When logged out, I tried creating HAGGER123 and it sayed it was blacklisted, so maybe administrators can create the pages on the blacklist, or possibly logged in users. When logged out, I also tried creating Hagger123 and it didn't say anything about it being blacklisted. This is probably because it says <casesensitive> beside the blacklisted titles so only titles with HAGGER cannot be created, but titles with Hagger can be created. ☆ Lights (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried creating the page Hagger earlier, and it allowed me to. Razorflame 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it won't let you now, it was because I had casesensitive on. Oysterguitarist 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Want me to test this? Razorflame 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but it won't let you ;) Oysterguitarist 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I just noticed that several of the pages here, including Homer Simpson, Maggie Simpson, Ned Flanders, The Simpsons shorts, List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, Marge Simpson and Lisa Simpson are pretty much EXACT copies of pages that I wrote for the English Wiki. Is there some kind of rule against this? -- Scorpion0422 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is, however, I believe that that was not what was intended. Please firstly calm down so that you can talk this over rationally. An admin will reply to this as soon as possible. Razorflame 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I will get to work on changing and simplifying them and will delete any content which may be viewed as a copyright infringement. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

All pages on all wikipedias are licences under the GNU Free Documentation License. This means they can be copied or modified freely. It is not copyright violation to copy wikipedia material for any purpose so long as it is still used under GNU-FDL (and as all wikipedia info is automatical licensed that way, the infomation can free be copied from one wikipedia to another as both are using the license). The only restrictions are those the wikipedia using the information creates to control its content (such as format restrictions, language restrictions and so forth).

The Homer Simpson page is an FA here, and a lot of the words aren't very simple, ie. intolerant, dysfunctional, Aristotelian. -- Scorpion0422 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As has already been stated by Gwib, he is going to simplify the articles right now, so stop worrying! They are getting worked on as we speak! Razorflame 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And that is a problem with the VGA system here which is currently being addressed. It has no bearing on the matter of copyright infringement though. -- Creol(talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already notifiied Scorpion that is isn't in any way a copyright infringement. Razorflame 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still plagiarism and it shouldn't be allowed. -- Scorpion0422 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you not understand the GNU-FDL license? It appears as though that is the case. Please go reread it. Razorflame 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this wiki then? Why don't you go and copy every single page from the English one and not even bother to simplify the language? -- Scorpion0422 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying what should not be allowed please find any actual violation of copyright and then bring them back to us--Bärliner 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did : Homer Simpson, Maggie Simpson, Ned Flanders, The Simpsons shorts, List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes, Marge Simpson and Lisa Simpson are (or were) word for word copies from the English wiki. -- Scorpion0422 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to take a second to apologize to everyone for my rather spastic behaviour. I suppose I did overreact a tad, and I will let the users here sort out the issue without my further interference. -- Scorpion0422 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

United States

This article is frequently vandalized. Could it be protected? JetLover ^Bam! 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, it seems the article has been vandalized every 5-6 days. I think this can be handled with undoing vandalism. Protection should be left for when there are lots of vandal edits in a day, perhaps. - Huji ^reply 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a move protection, as there is no need to move the page. That should be enough.--Bärliner 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

order

Moved to Simple talk -- Creol(talk) 11:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

IamAR

TO ALL ADMINS:
This is to notify all admins (and any other users) that Ben evaded his block by editing several talk pages including mine, Barliner's and his own through a total of 4 different IP addresses.

After having each one blocked consecutively, he finally stopped. But we must take into consideration that evading a block with no less than 4 different IP addresses is a serious affair. Here is a list of the IP addresses he used.

I have blocked each IP address for 48 hours and Barliner was trying to organize a block over a range (here), but I think that this is a serious matter in that he:

1. Doesn't care about blocks
2. Knows how to evade blocks
3. Obviously doesn't understand blocks (considering he thinks that they are taking away his "valuable article editing" time)

--Gwib ^-(talk)- 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that he may be editing under a large open proxy. If so, then large numbers of IP addresses would get indef blocked. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

He has most likely recently created Ben is back (talk · contribs). I think the block should be extended to indef. Lights ^(talk) § 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But we don't know that for sure. We should wait until the checkuser confirms that it is a sock of Iamandrewrice. Razorflame 02:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Theres not much we can do now until the checkuser comes in. Oysterguitarist 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser came in and all the IP's are Ben's. Razorflame 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben is Back is definitely not him. As to range blocking, currently I got 6 seperate ranges some of which can cause colateral damage if blocked. The more he evades, the more IPs we get to limit the ranges needed to be dealt with. So far there is one other registered account in his ranges which is not him (its registered back in '05, edits very infrequently but has edited in the last 30 days)-- Creol(talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of an permanent ban if he continues to evade my block. Thank you Gwib and Barliner for staying on top of his block evasion today. I instituted the block on my way out the door this afternoon. Normally, I would have been present after such a block, and I had anticpated problems from him as a result. Frankly he has made some constructive edits, but like other another recent problem, Ionas, he doesn't seem to be able to let things go. The whole color thing and the baiting of Tygrrr today show a inability to move on. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If 'Ben is back' not him, who is it? --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 06:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi... (yes im IamAR, but don't worry i'm not going to edit...) The IP addresses were me... but What on Earth?! Ben is Back is definitely not me... i think i have an idea who it is though... :( (do a checkuser on IuseRosary and Ben is Back) and thats not true, i do have a respect for blocks, but blocks are not meant to be used as a punishment, but instead simply to stop vandalism or disruption, neither of which i had any intention of causing, as i simply wanted to go edit articles (as you will see I was doing from my IP address). And yes i know i have been... 'awkward?'... lately, but I am trying, I really am, please just assume good faith on me. (and this is the last time I will post from my IP address until my block is over... its just to explain some things) 78.145.36.171 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet after this "last time I will post from my IP address until my block is over" two more IPs were used (checked and blocked). After the initial block, no less than seven IPs have been used to evade the block. -- Creol(talk) 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a known issue from the checkuser over at enwiki that a) the school IP is a known source of vandalism at should at the very least be soft blocked here and b) there are at least two different people involved, one of which is using the same IP range as that which per your own checkuser here was unrelated to Ben. I have asked Jeffpw to take over as I can't be online for very long periods of time today. I cannot encourage you strongly enough to do a checkuser on IuseRosary to determine if any sleepers are being created and to look for similarities in the userstring. For crosswiki checkuser requests consult a steward on Meta. I've done what I could here - he was doing fine when I left last night and I can't quite figure out what went wrong here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What has been decided on this issue? Razorflame 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking proxies

Other wikipedias have been hard blocking open proxies, I was wondering whether we should be hard blocking or soft blocking. Oysterguitarist 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two? Razorflame 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When blocking proxies a soft block is blocking anonymous users and disabling account creation and hard blocking is disabling account creation only. Oysterguitarist 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say you should be soft blocking, but we should wait for the other administrator's opinions :) Razorflame 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Though I'm not an admin. I think you've got it wrong though, hardblocking (as far as I know from en) is blocking an account, the ip, and account creation and softblock is just the account,maybe the ip. I'd vote for blocking account creation and anon editing. Cypher (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually your right but I just refer to it as tht when talking about IP's. Oysterguitarist

For reference: Hard block is a complete block, no user can edit from that IP, registered or not. Soft block only prevents anon edits. Both block account creation. I tend to soft block, but only because I forget to uncheck the anon only box. There realy is no reason for any registered user in good standing to need to use an open proxy to contribute here (barring any Chinese user or other politically motivated widescale block on wikipedia in general). Open proxies should be entirely shut down (hard block/no email) as there is (with very few exceptions) no reason for them to be used by constructive users. 99% of open proxy use here is vandalism. -- Creol(talk) 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking towards a soft block. Hard blocks should probably only be used in cases of severe vandalism by multiple vandals using sockpuppetry. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 07:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Snake 311. I use a proxy most of the time for privacy, but I'll be willing to change. As you all probably know, shut down Tor first :'( as that's one of the most common ones. Cypher (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspected spambot

Just blocked User:Flamestar as a suspected spambot - it's another one like User:ChristineJansson, which posts rubbish onto the wiki and emails people with nonsense emails. I'm not exactly a spambot expert so I can't say for certain if it is or not, but just in case folks: if you have already received an email from User:Flamestar, do not respond. Whatever it is, it's a robot and it's intentions aren't good. Archer7 - talk 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Project

Moved to Simple talk. Oysterguitarist 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Project

moved to simple talk --Bärliner 14:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IuseRosary block

Hi all. I blocked IuseRosary due to some confusion I was experiencing due to heavy traffic on my talk page. He has been unblocked but, through IamAR, says he cannot edit still because of the autoblock. Anyone have any idea what the trouble could be? · Tygrrr... 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Situation has been taken care of. · Tygrrr... 19:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwib

He keeps posting the same message on mine and IuseRosary's talk page. He has posted it 3 times on mine, and twice on IuseRosary's. The comment is completely irrelevant, as in it, you will see that he asks something about 'sarcasm' and 'whit', which have no benefit to the encyclopedia. I have informed IuseRosary of what was going on on his talk page through email, and he requested that I delete it. Can you please help to stop Gwib harrassing us? Thank you everyone ^^ ...im trying to deal with this in the most appropriate way, i've never dealt with someone quite like this IamARe 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He has now also protected my talk page to stop me removing his persistent messaging. I'm not sure what's got into him, but I am not in a position to do anything about this, and in his current state of mind he will probably try and block me soon, probably just for posting this... something is really up with him, and i don't know what to do. Can my talk page be unprotected everyone too please? IamARe 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I posted it more than once is because you keep on removing it. I think that when a message is removed, it should be restored. When Snake called someone "a queer", I requested it be kept since one can't just go about removing information from talk pages if he thinks that they're irrelevant or insulting. That would compromise past conversations entirely.

Removing information from a talk page is considered vandalism as seen already when IuseRosary removed info from this talk page. I protected the page so that you have time to cool off and understand this. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected your talk page, as you are free to remove comments from your page as you like. As Gwib was edit warring over it, it was inappropriate to protect it fully. It does not constitute vandalism. Majorly (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwib, could you please point me to the relevant policies regarding personal attacks and user pages? I would like a chance to review them before I comment here. I am familiar with the policies on other Wikis, but haven't been able to find them on this one. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No Gwib, you are not correct, you keep vandalising and harrassing both IuseRosary and myself. It is not acceptable. Those messages are entirely irrelevant, and I will continue to remove them, as I hope everyone else here will if you persist. IamARe 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Majorly :) However, is it possible to just get a single protection on my talk page against Gwib? IamARe 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and there shouldn't be either. His message was legitimate, and you had no right to call it vandalism. You may remove it, but you should do so in a civil manner. Many non-encyclopedia issues are discussed on talk pages. Majorly (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwib, could you please point me to the relevant policies regarding personal attacks and user pages? I would like a chance to review them before I comment here. I am familiar with the policies on other Wikis, but haven't been able to find them on this one. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of messages in a talk page is considered as vandalism. Just because he has read the message or finds it insulting doesn't mean that it can be removed. If this was the case, conversations could be controlled and twisted. Any message unless considered extremely offensive it relevant and shouldn't be removed. My message was not a personal attack, nor was it very offensive. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your message was perfectly fine, however he has every right to remove it. What is bad though, is repeatedly adding it and locking the page. Majorly (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does he have every right to remove it? It was neither a personal attack nor vandalism. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's his talk page, that's why. His removal suggests he's read them, so that's what matters. Majorly (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwib, unless you can point to policy supporting your view, you should probably let this go. Once again, where is a list opf policy pages that I can review? Jeffpw (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So apparently, continuity has no purpose on talk pages.. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted the same message from gwib in what seems to have become some form of edit war.--Bärliner 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Readding the message again, with an all caps summary is not something I appreciate seeing, especially in an admin, Gwib. Majorly (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've just read the user page policy, and there is no information regarding either archiving or deleting comments from one's userpage. Until such policy is created, it would seem Ben is within his rights to delete content from the page that he wishes. Take a look at it for yourself, Gwib. Jeffpw (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I just hope that Gwib can sort out these issues he is having. This appears to be a follow up where Gwib persisted, despite IuseRosary's protests, in interrogating him about his religion. IamARe 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The all caps thing was genuinely a mistake, didn't check properly.. and even though I was personally attacked by IuseRosary, I'll let it go, I think maybe the best think here will be to forgive and forget, and I hold no grudges against IuseRosary and suggest he stop pouting and do the same. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I highly doubt that it was a mistake, I am willing to forget about this. And actually Gwib, it was you that was harrassing IuseRosary, pestering him about his religion, and then calling him 'the Frozen Chosen'. When he later used this term himself, unnaware exactly of what it meant, you told him it was an insulting term. Therefore, you admitted to using an insulting term on him, did you not? Therefore, you were the one that made a personal attack. IuseRosary's description of you as a 'runt' was far less serious, and most deifinitely provoked. IamARe 19:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What a convienient mistake, to have 'non-vandilism' all in caps and the rest not. I know that I used foul language when refering to you, but I have apologised for that and feel bad about my lack of respect. I never usually use foul language and me saying 'Runt' certainly crossed the line - it will not happen again. I do not wish to reconsile until you have calmed down Gwib, you are apparently quite tense and so therefor i think we should keep our distance for a while. I do not pout, I tell the truth, I do not lie, if that is what you were suggesting. IuseR 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am part of the The Frozen Chosen. Because that is what us presbyterian christians are called, And I know that because I am a presbyterian!"

I think that covers both comments made by IuseRosary and IamAR. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this dispute needs to end now. Bickering back and forth is not conflict resolution and the veiled attacks in explanations etc. do nothing but make the situation worth. I would like to see no further conversation on this matter. This is just more of everyone's time being wasted on an argument. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not twist the facts Gwib. That is what IuseRosary said to you after you told him this: "Part of the Frozen Chosen!", on his talk page, and another editor (this is all still there under 'religion' if you want to check it by the way) told him it meant 'presbyterian christians'. IuseRosary was under the impression that it was simply a normal term for his religion, as you had him believe. You then continued to pester him about his religion in spite of his protests. IamARe 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained to you Gwib, thta I said I knew what 'frozen chosen' meant because i was a tad imbaressed that I did not know it as some of a lot of my beliefs follow the presbyterian faith. and once again, you are discussing a topic which i have specifically asked that You didn't talk about to me or about me.IuseR 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it may be unpleasant brown, this is something that must be dealt with, as Gwib has been most unkind to IuseRosary from my personal observations, and Im sure IuseRosary would not argue. IamARe 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IamAR, cool down and take some time off of this discussion. Gwib, take some time off of this discussion. Cool down, and when you've calmed yourself down, step back and let others talk this over. That is what I'm suggesting to both of you. Razorflame 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• What about me? I have been victim of Gwib's vandilidm and abuse aswell. IuseR 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cool off and step back from the discussion as well. We will talk it out. I will let you know of the outcome. Razorflame 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you razorflame, I know that both IuseR and myself will conduct ourselves responsibly. I thank you all for your immediate help, and if/when Gwib does something like this again, i'm happy to know that there are such caring community members such as yourselves to defend me. I really am very grateful IamAre 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending you. I'm politely asking you to step back from this discussion until it is resolved. Razorflame 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is resolved. I don't think they'll have any more problems with Gwib. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking them to do this just in case it isn't resolved. Razorflame 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK razorflame I will wait it out and see what you can conclude. I would like to point out that Gwib's angry outbirsts appeared to start when I removed Gwib's mention in my 'wikifriends' on my userpage. Perhaps this is the reason for Gwib's temper, and if it is, I sincerely appologize for the tantrum it may (or may not) have caused Gwib to have. However, my reason for removing him was in fact to do with his religious interrogations of IuseRosary which I found unprofessional and un-administor like. So thank you everyone, I will check up on this some time later or tomorrow. IamAre 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

General point on the policy relevant here:

“	Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. Please note, though, that the removal of good-faith warnings, even though permitted, is often frowned upon	”
—Wikipedia:User page

We do have a problem in this area with some admins following practice over policy. Usually this is because they only see the practice and never knew the policy. -- Creol(talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If Gwib was unnaware of the policies, I forgive him somewhat... although being an administrator, I would hope that he should know all the policies, and hope that the other admins do, but Gwib is newer and innexperienced, so it is understandable that he will make lots of mistakes... IamR 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is much else that can be gained from continuing this conversation. If any admins would like to brush up on policies, here's a helpful link: en:Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. · Tygrrr... 16:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is, we are here to create an encyclopedia. user:iamandrewrice should perhaps consider himself fortunate to be given as much time by fellow users and administrators as he has been. A quick look through his contributions at EN suggests he managed to distract a number of hard working editors with his "games". If the user wants to contribute here then fine, but is creating an account of "admin harassment" really the best way to contribute, or is it just going to further test the patience? And isn't it clear that creating such a section is going to do just that? And this edit here could be seen as a person attack, if only because of its uncivil tone. May I suggest iamandrewrice forgets about other editors and merely focuses on improving the encyclopedia? MindTheGap (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you MindTheGap, but it is not a personal attack. It is merely stating that he makes a lot of mistakes, as all people who are new to something should. Razorflame 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you razorflame. And MindTheGap, i was not intending to be uncivil to anyone, and as far as I am aware, I have not been. With regards to creating the secion on my page, this is to keep a record of what happens for the timebeing so that while this thread on the AN is here, I have a source to tell me what happened, because I reverted all his edits to my page during the incident, and so did IuseRosary, so i felt that it was necessary to at least somewhere keep a record. IamR 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The page history serves as a record, nothing else is needed. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 213.166.17.24

Hello fellow admins. I have permanently blocked the address given above from adding things anonymously; Account creation remains possible. The address in question has regularly contributed (few things). As far as I can tell, all contributions from 2007 have been vandalism; there are no "non-vandalism" contributions. I have therefore blocked anonymous users from that address from editing. In the unlikely case that there will be any good edits from this address, these can now only be by named editors. --Eptalon (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

School IP

Why has my school IP been blocked with the reason as 'IamAR and friends'? Oo IamR 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Several ips have been blocked. I will check for you.--Bärliner 14:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming I have the correct IP entry in the log, the log says "(expires 14:10, 6 January 2009, account creation blocked) (Long term vandalism (2 years), schoolip - IamAR and friends)". The list of vandalism from this address is disgustingly long, and cannot be tolerated. If users cannot edit because of the block that is unfortunate. Perhaps they should ask their schoolfriends why they caused the vandalism in the first place.--Bärliner 15:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The 75 acts of vandalism over the last two years may be part of the reason. -- Creol(talk) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

but that is not what I have the problem with... I want to know why my name is used?!! Are you calling me a vandal?! IamR 15:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. He did not use your name to call you a vandal. It was used because that IP has been tied to you in the past. Razorflame 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well can the wording of the block be changed then? Otherwise it makes it look like the school is banned because of 'IamR and Friends'... not that it is the school of IamR and IuseR blocked due to other vandalism or something... I'm sorry but if you were in my position, I doubt you would feel happy about this either. IamR 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording of "that" block cannot be changed. It will remain in the block log. However, the blocking admin can unblock and reblock the same addresses with a new comment, so in future, people coming from that IP would see the new comment. - Huji ^reply 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would appreciate it muchly if that could be done. Thanks IamR 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And also, can it just be soft blocked so that people with already existing accounts can at least log on and edit at school? Oo IamR 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what got you banned an EN Wiki? Others logging on and posing as you. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But my friends don't know about simple wiki... and anyway, if you just soft block it, then if they havnt already made an account somewhere else, they can't do anything, and they're not going to bother doing that... IamR 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They "bothered" to do it an EN Wiki, they bothered to create over 50 accounts to vandalize and pose as sockpuppets of you. IuseRosary also found out about this site, and if you and him plan on editing during school time whilst surrounded by classmates I don't think that our "splendid isolation" would survive much longer. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer my point. You can just soft block them, so at least myself and I.R can edit there... I-R 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the past history of the school and your personal history at security, I can not help but feel that at some point either your password would be found (keylogger, looking over your shoulder, etc), you forget to log out each and every time you leave the computer, or they just decide to create accounts elsewhere. You stated that your friends at school don't know about this place, but that is blatanly wrong given both IuseR knows about it and the long history of vandalism from there. You believe they would not be bothered to create an account at home and use it, but given the fact they did bother to hack your en:wp account and cause massive disruption shows that they apparently are willing to bother doing what is needed to "have a little fun". This all leads to further problems for us which takes time away from doing what we are here to do, write articles. The block was set for a reason, it also matches the hard block on en:wiki that need checkuser approval to be remove. There is no valid reason to remove the hard block. -- Creol(talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to his new restrictions, IamAR will not be able to participate in this conversation anymore. It seems be resolved at this point anyways, though... · Tygrrr... 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I just add, before closure, in reply to Creol: The community at EN, by all accounts, never actually accepted that any accounts were hacked MindTheGap (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Automated page creation?

This page here doesn't seem to be associated to a user page and has been created by an IP. I thought I should mention it here MindTheGap (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it under the context "Test page" after checking the IP creators rather shaky talk page. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

QD:U2 - User pages of users that do not exist. -- Creol(talk) 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Iamandrewrice's new restrictions

I wanted to notify all admins that IamAR has new restrictions. He can edit the following pages, and only the following pages:

1. his user page
2. his talk page
3. talk pages of administrators
4. articles
5. talk pages of articles

This restriction is in hope that he will stop his excessive disruption. I have said that if he breaks this restriction that it will result in a one-week block. If anyone sees a violation, please issue the block. If problems continue despite the restrictions, I think it will be time for a ban. · Tygrrr... 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I should bring this to light as well. For the past 2 or 3 arguments, I've been the main subject of his "amusement" and think it best that he shouldn't ask me any questions (although I doubt he would) and that I shouldn't be the one to warn him if he does do something wrong or to answer any queries he may have for fear of me being biased (although I would take much pleasure in blocking him if he should edit outside of his restricted zone). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think that would be wise. · Tygrrr... 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dosen't that make him feel more irritated, possibly further agonizing him to be more disruptive. I'm aware of his past behavior, but if it is to correct his behavior, shouldn't the alternative be slightly less like "restricting". Also I don't think I can block anyone if he starts to go on a rampage. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is all well and good, but when two users are seemingly using their talk pages as a social network, and have almost identical signatures (which may not be against policy, but common sense suggests it shouldn't be allowed) and then go out of their way to insult admins by constantly referring to them as he/she/it then surely enough is enough? I ask you to consider how much of your time has been spent trying to deal with these two users (iamandrewrice especially). Despite his claims of superior intelligence the user quickly reverts to, after being given a very easy piece of advice to comprehend, claiming he doesn't understand it.

A game seems to be being played, and while I have the utmost of respect for the admins and other users who are going out of their way to help iamandrewrice - and while his terrible behaviour at EN Wiki arguably has nothing to do with here - there has to come a time when enough is enough. Users on EN tried to help, or at least thought they were trying to help, before eventually realising they were being gamed. Fortunately there were enough people over there to sort the situation out, whereas here the lesser number of users means there is more potential for disruption.

So I'd just like to urge you all to be very cautious because the longer the minor niggles and gaming og the system goes on, the more annoyed you will be when you eventually decide to act upon it. MindTheGap (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I must have a crystal ball. The latest signature debacle can be added to my points above - clear examples of gaming. MindTheGap (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Account compromised?

Just noticed this edit and it just doesn't seem to read correctly. Is there a chance the account has been compromised, as it seems strange for someone self-identified as 13 to described another user who is self-identified as 16 to as "young". And the message is somewhat rambling. I wouldn't normally worry too much but, given the circumstances, thought it worth mentioning MindTheGap (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite alright, he obviously doesn't understand what "pray tell" means. If you are reading this, IamR, pray, when used in this context, is simply to beseech someone. But I forgive you for not being as knowledgeable as your elders :). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant in comparison to how old other people are on this website, and ben user:iamandrewrice who is like a year older than this Gwib Charcter. Do you have a problem with me Mr.Gap? Cos it seems that you may have a person vendetta against me? That was a personal message to ben! I'll email him in future!

I.R 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Ps. Thank you for explaining that to me, Mr.Gwib. I.R 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:IuseRosary has been warned about leaving such inappropriate messages in inapproporiate locations--Bärliner 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that wikipedia is not a social networking site "personal messages" are not appropriate, particular when the two people concerned are often in email contact anyway. --Bärliner 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I will keep all my personal messages or messages that can be deemed as Insulting, even though I assure you it was not meant as that to emailes. I'm Sorry! I.R 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddy

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but Freddy might be back. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's definitely him... IP isn't giving us much info unfortunately. Archer7 - talk 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the block be indefinite? Oysterguitarist 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment we do not have much info. CheckUser reports this as a first time user; but the tool has its limits). For the time I would make this a "normal" block for lewd/insulting/harrassing behaviour; Once we can confirm it is really him, we can then do a long-time (read: half a year to a year) block. --Eptalon (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you check again to see if it's an open proxy? it's been blocked on en before as an open proxy. Oysterguitarist 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That block was changed when it was learned the IP was a secured corporate proxy. -- Creol(talk) 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you combine these edits against MKil with the emails I'm receiving (that started yesterday, when this did), I think we can safely assume this is him. Archer7 - talk 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ionas68224 ban violation

Ionas has violated his ban again, with recent sockpuppets:

• Sam24IsBack (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• D. G. Sonja (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
• 68.224.117.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

see User_talk:Archer7#Ionas. Oysterguitarist 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be usful :

Ionas you have been extened every opportunity. One sockpuppet is enough to be banned. Just because you admitted to them means aboslutely nothing. Don't respond and don't make another edit or you ban will be permanent.

(BrownE34, September 20 last year). (posted by Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 08:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

I still disagree with the above, as I just think Ionas is just too young to understand what is going on here. By all means, reset the ban, but just think twice before a lifetime ban. Just my $0.02 worth. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 08:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should continue enforcement of the original ban, without extension - recent vandalism makes it obvious that he's not yet ready to return. Archer7 - talk 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Archer7. I believe that the block should be restarted, and should be restarted each time a new incident is confirmed.Bärliner 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is still about half a year block left for him; so at the moment we do not have to do anything about this (except blocking sockpuppets, which we do anyway). --Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just thought about a carrot and stick policy for him; as of now, he has about 6 months ban left (static). This ban is converted to a 3 month ban (dynamic). The 3 months are restarted at every incident of him trying to evade it that we find - That way he has an incentive for not creating new socks (or trying to circumvent this ban), on the other hand we have a tool to prolong his block. When his original block would have run out (autumn 08, don't know exactly), we reconsider. What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ionas68224's block was reset on 23 December. As far as incentive goes. He already has one. If he does not break the any more rules he will be able to get back. If he breaks the rules the block will continue. We cannot give him a shorter rolling ban just in the hope he will comply.--Bärliner 14:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that his ban be should be shorter, he already has an incentive to get back in and he can do that by not creating anymore sockpuppets. Oysterguitarist 15:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to go with the stick on this occasion, he's already been given his body weight in carrots and simply created more sockpuppets and disruption in general. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we tried the "carrot and stick" thing before where we offered to reconsider the ban at the end of the year. He evaded it several times, even towards the end of the year after recent reminders of it. Archer7 - talk 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are still people who think Ionas may grow older and understand things better, okay! But I don't think he will grow up a lot in the next few months remaining from his block. I see no good reason to avoid restarting the block due to use of sockpoppets. In short: One year block from now. - Huji ^reply 11:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reset the block for one year(account creation disabled, email blocked). Oysterguitarist 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

What is the policy/guideline on signatures?. Particularly in view of User_talk:Iamandrewrice#Signatures--Bärliner 15:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember hearing that signatures have to be no more than 3 lines of code. As for colors, if there isn't a policy about it, we should add one that says that any part of signatures cannot be either invisible, or in the color white. As for harder to see colors like yellow, I'm not really sure if we can stop people from using that color. Razorflame 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also remember hearing that the pixel size for signatures can be no bigger than a certain amount. What that amount is, I can't remember. Razorflame 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Iamandrewrice block

After this item in his user change log:

15:10, 12 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive5‎ (→Support - removing my vote. I no longer support it gathering the uncivility of THE GWIB)

I have blocked Iamandrewrice for one week for failing to comply with the restrictions under which he should be working.--Bärliner 15:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evaded by using 84.13.2.151. I am in favour of an extended block to 2 weeks, although this may be too harsh and I'm likely to be biased. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice the last time he was blocked (Jan 5) he swore up and down on his talkpage that he would never act disruptively again, and agreed that if he did, we could "ban" him. Blockinblox - talk 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then ban him. As per some of my comments above. It seems odd that a user who has a track record of mass disruption on another Wiki (80 or so socks?) should be given more chances rather than less! And I would once again like to add that despite all of his claims that his account(s) were hacked over at EN, the community never accepted that and so he was banned, not just blocked MindTheGap (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Support for MindTheGap's lucid arguments. I posted to one admin here when Ben and IuseRosary began editing that they were friends in spite of their assertions that they did not know one another, and said that disruption was likely to occur. My assumption of good faith is now over. I would strongly endorse any ban that was given to either of these parties. Ben had a good chance here, and has blown it with his disruption, aided and abetted by IuseRosary. Neither of them seems to be able to adhere to policy, and prefer to argue and debate things to death instead of building an encyclopedia. If that's how they feel, it would be a kindness to let them go elsewhere where they will perhaps be more appreciated for the "contributions" they have to offer. Jeffpw (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not extend Ben's block as he only requested being unblocked, which is what one template suggests. Any further use of that or any other IP is a candidate for further blocking--Bärliner 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• From an email that Ben sent me, I think he may have more than one account here, as he did at the English Wikipedia. I am posting the contents of the email here, and can forward it to an admin if necessary:

  'endorse ban for both ben and rosary' ey??? well we'll see about that won't we jeffrey! mark my words, as long as I can see to it, you're not going to get me banned here too... oh, yes, jeffrey, lets not forget who it was that got me banned on EN ...(concern for my adoptee)...You want to hear about 'grown up things'?! Well trust me jeff, you are certainly no more mature than me. My IQ is already the highest in my school... which is a grammar school. I have jumped a year in several subjects. I was accepted into Mensa (although did not take up the offer in the end). So lets not beat around the bush here. You may never underestimate what I can do. Because I am not this only manifestation.I look forward to seeing you around on Simple... just make sure you can conduct yourself appropriately.

  Jeffpw (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet, I believe that ben is trying to drag me into this to try and prove a point, but i am not 100% on this. A checkuser has been done, and we are shown as different users. if that is not enough, then look at our writing styles, or maybe the articles we edit. I.Rosary 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Iamandrewrice has requested an unblock. I have post {{unblock}} template, and ask another admin to review my reasoning and reply to the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barliner (talk • contribs)

Does anybody know if blocked users can edit their talk page when their blocked? Oysterguitarist 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The block template wording is "If you do not agree with this block, please reply on your talk page by adding {{unblock}}, replacing reason with why you think the block is wrong, or send an e-mail to an active administrator in this list", so I allowed the one ip edit, although this address is also now blocked. --Bärliner 21:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't know the convention here, on the English Wikipedia, the policy allows editors to edit their user page under their account name while they are blocked, so long as they do not abuse that right by posting attacks or multiple unblock requests after the request has been denied. If either of those situations occur, the page is protected to prevent further editing. Hope this helps. Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was wondering why iamandrewrice is not using his account to make the unblock request, cause on an eariler block he said he could not edit his talk page from his account. Oysterguitarist 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That was actually my point. On English Wiki, he could edit his page under his account name, so if policies and software are the same, he should be able to here, as well. Jeffpw (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict while I was posting this so didn't see your post. Oysterguitarist 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to quote an external source here which I found whilst poking around on En Wiki. Iamandrewrice is "now in a position where nothing [he] says can be trusted". This includes the fact that he says he can't edit his talk page (source). --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) I did two tests (with my own account); Blocked users cannot edit their talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I would like it if blocked editors could edit their talk pages but, I don't see the developers doing that anytime soon. Oysterguitarist 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be a useful feature, yes. --Eptalon (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't actually thought of blocking myself to check if it was true :p --Gwib ^-(talk)- 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is it that blocked users on other Wikipedias can post under their account name, but not here? I thought the basic software was the same across the board. Jeffpw (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just checked, and nope you can't edit your own talk page while blocked. I used the softest block (just in case it was a problem with autoblock stopping it) and got a realy ugly warning that I couldnt block. On a side note, that warning needs to be looked at as it is formatted wrong and doesnt display correctly. Must be something in the settings somewhere preventing editting, would not be the first time we are not set up to match en:wp (Special:most wanted being a wonderfull example)-- Creol(talk) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting part is, I read some bugs in MediaWiki Bugzilla about "preventing" blocked users from editing their own talk pages! Anyways, the latest version of MediaWiki doesn't allow blocked users to edit their talk pages any more. Changing this is not a hard task to do (can be done in a couple of minutes indeed). - Huji ^reply 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be certain then all block templates will have to be rewritten to show that an unblock request must be by email to an admin, (the blocking admin?) who can than extract the reuest and post the unblock request template. This of course would not work for some abusers for whom email is also blocked. --Bärliner 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am against IamAR coming back to this Wikipedia. He's been given a last chance opportunity and he blew it. As was stated on his talk page that if he was to act disruptively in the future, then we could ban him. Therefore, ban him. Razorflame 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Letting blocked users edit their talk page

Hello, rather than changing all the templates would it not be better to let blocked users edit their talk page (as the only page they can edit); if it is just a matter of minutes to change, how much work would it be to make this settable (as in the block user template?) --Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "block user template"? How do you relate that to blocking options? Finally, why don't you share your ideas on Bugzilla (bug 8440)? - Huji ^reply 13:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)