Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Community ban proposal for Sju hav[change source]

Dear all,

I am bringing the following editor to the community's attention:

Looking though his edits made within the past month or so, I present the following evidence that casts strong doubt on the editor's suitability to continue contributing to this wiki:

It is my view that this editor currently constitutes a net negative to the project, and that we should not be wasting unnecessary editorial resources towards dealing with whatever he throws us on a daily basis. I am pursuing this matter via the traditional community ban process, rather than using WP:ONESTRIKE, for I would like any possible block applied on him to have explicit community approval, and not based on, as some might say, a single administrator's "arbitrary" judgement. Hypothetically speaking, if said editor's block on EN was overturned, the fact that this is a community-endorsed block (a ban) means that an unblock request on this wiki definitely must do more than simply stating that the block has been overturned on EN (and thus, grounds for overturning a WP:ONESTRIKE block). Also, the offence committed on EN appears to be sockpuppetry, of which I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that it is happening on this wiki.


Thank you for your time. --Chenzw  Talk  16:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Give editors a few chances, and some good advice — but if these don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not competent enough.

WP:CIR


You seem to trying to paint a picture, that I am using Simple-wiki to present some problem at one other Wikipedia. That is inaccurate.
However, I do see a challenge in having a Simple-wiki admin making generalized claims about my edits at Simple-wiki, without diffs, because he is making the claim on another wikipedia (English-wiki).
His claim was made around 12 August. (That view was presented on English-wiki, without diffs to substantiate his misgivings.)
I also do not think it was fortunate for the admin to also refer to a (then) ongoing discussion about List of scientists, and "red links". (The conclusion of the deletion discussion about the Lists, did not paint me as a villain, unlike the admin using my unblock request, to push his view about an ongoing deletion discussion (and tarring me, arguably as conveniently as he could.)
I was involved in one discussion, in part about "ownership" of a finished school project. Diffs [1].
I left that topic alone after administrators disagreed with my edits. I can not see that an edit war has ensued there. But one can argue that I should have left that discussion quicker.
@Jimbo Wales: has been asked with my permission by an IP previously, if he thinks I should be banned permanently from English-wiki. He did let the request stand on his talk page, unanswered, until the post was archived after (I think) about half a week.
My user page, does not have the exact material, from one deleted talk page - a project page of mine. (And one of the arguments for deleting the page was, more or less, saving storage space on Wikipedia's servers.) I will take a look at that part of the user page now, to see if I can/should remove the material, without having that interpreted as some measure of guilt. Sju hav (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I have now removed a part of my user page, and here is the diff [2].
Please feel free to quote from the original post, in regard to any portion of the post that one feels I have not answered - or not answered enough. Sju hav (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support To be honest I was pretty close to doing a one strike anyway. I had decided to give it a couple of days to make sure it was a good decision before pulling the trigger. Seeing Chenzw well thought out proposal I can't help but support since I was likely going to do it anyway. I have seen nothing but trouble from this editor since they came here. He is clearly a net negative to this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

*Reject- I will be blunt from the word "go". In Danish (my first language), there is a saying - "Der er ugler i mosen" - "There are owls in the bog." We use it when something looks or feels wrong, or we have an inkling that something's not quite right. That's how I feel right now. What happened to your use of community process? Blocks? Oh look, the logs say they've never been used here. What I have seen of Sju hav, gives me the impression that they're trying to do their best, while wrangling with problems elsewhere and finding it difficult to wade through the bog of community process. The rules governing Wikipedia are not easy to learn and even harder to get your head round, even I am having trouble understanding them. Everyone deserves more than one chance. As you say in English - "Nobody's perfect". Probably not even you :) May I suggest before accusing others of violating community process, you go through all the steps leading up to where you are now. DaneGeld (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Move to Support: The community has tried to bend over backwards to help this guy, and the message still didn't make it through. I now support this community ban, since it's obvious we're getting nowhere fast and using up an awful lot of energy trying. DaneGeld (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

    • The reason we're having this conversation about ban even though there is no block in the log is because we have two options here: 1. we ban him per this community discussion or 2. an admin institutes an indefinite WP:ONESTRIKE block. If he is blocked, he's not getting a short block. He's getting an indefinite block. Based on the comments of other admins on here, it basically boils down to "we think he needs to be blocked; should it be with community consensus or with the action of a single admin?" Only (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Only: My concern with the block that is being proposed now, is that no short term measures have been implemented against this user at all at this Wikipedia. If you have had problems with his editing, why have shorter term blocks not been attempted earlier in the situation? In my eyes, this is essentially going from 0 to 60 without taking your foot off the accelerator. If he should be blocked, it should be done the right way in the right order - it's obvious that his edits are not all vandalism, he's doing what he can and getting dogpiled for his efforts. Not cool. Sorry. DaneGeld (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
        • The entire purpose of the WP:ONESTRIKE policy at this wiki is so that we don't waste time on those sorts of measures for someone who has already proven on another wiki to not have them work. You may be unaware of the history of this wiki. We were used as a dumping ground for bad editors from other wikis. They were told to come here and proove you are better. It caused no end of trouble here, wreaked havoc on this wiki and sucked all the time out of our editors and admins trying to keep the circus in check. In the end we had to institute these measures to keep the wiki from having to be shut down. His chances occurred on the other wiki he is blocked on. He doesn't get fresh chances just by coming here. Only one. -DJSasso (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - With edits like this, this, this, this as well as the pointless sub page creation indicate there's a clear WP:CIR issue here, The Jimbo edits (and edit summaries with them) are enough for me to support a ban here. –Davey2010Talk 19:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Using the "Competence is required" argument really is an own goal. Not everyone meets the standards of others, and not everyone can or will - see Dunning-Kruger effect, which quotes "the tendency for incompetent people to be unaware of their incompetence—and for highly skilled people to believe that people capable of their achievements are more numerous than they really are." - PLUS, that's an essay which only contains opinions, and has not gained community consensus. Do we really bin people based only on someone's opinions? DaneGeld (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It may well be an essay however it's still a widely used essay and is something anyone and everyone can be blocked per, IMHO It's about meeting the expected standards here - Ofcourse it being Simple English people here may have various issues and I respect that but we still need to have expected standards of editors, Just 'cos it's Simple English it doesn't mean you get to wreck havoc and not face the consequences. –Davey2010Talk 20:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure where to dump my comment so am dumping it here - In light of Sju's actions below I support indef blocking, As I said below if they're not getting it now they never will and so as such they're better off indeffed, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Can contributions at Wikidata, in part, sort of act as a character witness?
My contributions at the Wikidata part of the Wiki-project.
--Sju hav (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Sju hav claims that I presented evidence at his English Wikipedia unblock statement without diffs (he says this twice above); anyone can take a look at my comment there and see that his claim here is false. Only (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Your claim about contentious edits, arguably are not covered by your diffs. (But having a roll call of five or fifty persons to say that you are right, is doable; I am not arguing with that.)
A main point of mine is this: You were so dissatisfied with my edits (at that point in August), that you had recommended, zero times, that I be blocked.
Now you have had your say, I have had my say? Sju hav (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
now you're moving the goal posts: "he didn't provide diffs" is now "he did but I don't think they're sufficient". If my argument at the unblock discussion was so weak and so questionable, why wouldn't the reviewing admin have ignored it? Clearly there's merit to what I said and the evidence I provided.
And for the record I fully support a community ban on Sju hav. Only (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Your claim about contentious edits, arguably are not covered by your diffs. (But having a roll call ... is doable; I am not arguing with that.)
I am trying to show the full picture: You were so dissatisfied with my edits (at that point in August), that you had recommended, zero times, that I be blocked.
You are trying to focus on a small part of the (whole) picture, with your arguably inaccurate (or untrue) talk about moving goal posts.
But in August you had not proposed a ban, and complained about my edits in general (on another website while showing ), without providing diffs of any of the most problematic general edits in mainspace. (The supposed problems of those edits, were arguably around half of your case against me. That part was only based on your opinion, without diffs to support.) Sju hav (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
On 15 September, I, user:sju hav, have come to accept that user:Only has in Good Faith, made statements against my "simple-wiki edits".
Where there is smoke, there is fire!
I have now come to accept that user:Only's description of things, must have been accurate.
If I have done any damage to the good reputation of user:Only, then I am very sorry about that. Sju hav (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Other than re-arranging articles into Lists, i haven't seen Sju hav do much content work (as in: creating articles/stubs that do not exist yet, or simplifying articles). What I have also seen is the editor may have problems assessing who is notable (a publication in a medical journal, such as The Lancet clearly makes someone in the field of Medicine notable). Anyway: the editor should focus on content work; this is a small wiki, and endless discussions are not helpful, especially if they clearly go against the opion of the majority. When i closed the RFD about the lists of Scientits by country, I tried to save as much info as possible, which means we now have 4 new Lists, whith ideally 4 blue links to scientists, but still many red-linked ones. What we now need is to get (at least stub) artzicles for all those red-linked scientists (if that is what the editor is interested in); In short: I am against a community ban if I see the editor do meaningful work on content. --Eptalon (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have made this list of some articles (that I wrote,) that have not taken much heat, yet.
Not doing much content work?
Well, I got interested in the subject regarding scientists, in part, because the argubaly most famous dead scientist in my country, does not have an aticle. Some/many/most of the scientists from my country, and on simple-wiki, seem to be "phone book entries, without notability shown".
I have found the same problem with some articles on En-wiki (during the past month).
I recommended one article about a scientist (not from my country), to be deleted. It was deleted.
In my latest lists, I have largely been successful in capturing a "core of notability". (Please take any name, of any red-link that I have added in the last two days, and dare me to make a stub, "by adding year of birth or place of birth or death". My point is that I have researched and found and added to Lists, significant portions of "core notabitity".) Sju hav (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
We are few editors on this wiki, even fewer create articles on science-related topics; your help creating stubs on scientists or science-related subjects which you then extend would be greatly appreciated. --Eptalon (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This link [3] deals with one stub (or sub-stub) that I have made today. If it is of any use for wikipedia - fine!
Comment - I was banned from Danish for one month, for not writing good enough Danish, in all edits. That ban ended 4-5 months ago. (Note: I have no schooling in Danish or Swedish, so I have no plans to create new stubs or articles at Danish.)
I have been banned from Swedish, for not writing good enough Swedish.
One year ago, I was banned at Norwegian (and not for sockpuppetry). My talk page is there, for all to see.
Those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry at English-wiki, can apply for unblock after six months of no "puppeteering". (And now 8 months have passed.)
At wikidata I have never seen any complaints, against my edits. Sju hav (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Completely side with net negative. I do agree with User:DaneGeld that a shorter block would be good, but I also understand the WP:ONESTRIKE reasoning, so I would support either. The amount of time reading and considering these discussions is significant, which wouldn't be an issue if the discussions were advancing this wiki, and I don't think they are. There is also the number of discussions started, adding to the time drain.--Tbennert (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Please link to the 3 discussions that you find the most frivolous (or negative, in that they can not forward wikipedia).
One deletion discussion was long, but resulted in a decision, that List articles must have 4 blue links. And for now there is no cap on red-links (when notability is shown).
The decision was quite important, in my view. Sju hav (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Why does one need to link you to 3 discussions specifically? In either case, here they are: 1, 2, and 3. Your style of participating in discussions is so hard to follow that I am unable to give specific diff links. For the third link, I want to put it on the record here that I consider that discussion to contain a huge amount of rhetoric that is counterproductive to the consensus-building process (as @StevenJ81: put it, "wikilawyering") and also wish to point out the serious error in logical reasoning:
This is a case of denying the antecedent, which is a logical fallacy. --Chenzw  Talk  17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding "your example" 3: I feel that you are somewhat close to trying to put blame on me for: Wikipedia did not have clear guidelines about how many "blue-link scientists-or-other-type-workers" have to be in a List-article - and no clarity on if there should be a cap on red-link-scientists etc. when shown to be notable.
In hindsight, perhaps I could have put one or two of the other of "your examples", on my user talk page - instead of at Simple Talk;
perhaps that might have made some difference to you. (That is not a question - I am not trying to prolong this proceeding.) Sju hav (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I am talking about your error in logical reasoning, and not blaming you for unclear guidelines. I didn't say anything about the guideline being unclear. I also don't see the relevance of 'putting one or two of the other of "your examples", on my user talk page - instead of at Simple Talk'. Why are you taking issue with this being brought up on WP:ST when you specifically requested for 3 examples of "frivolous" discussions? You seem to completely miss the point, and your statement above simply serves to confirm how you have been particularly problematic in community discussions. Chenzw  Talk  03:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support* Reminding me of my past self, pretty much every message on his/her talk page is a notification of error. Additionally, the user is Checkblocked on enwiki at this current time (one-strike rule). I support whatever repercussions Chen feels is appropriate.
Computer Fizz (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reminding you of your past self, Computer Fizz? So my comment above is relevant - Nobody's perfect. Did you get blocked for all those errors? And why should someone's behaviour on one wiki be cause to block on another? I barely consider myself competent. I've messed up more than once on here and had to have people correcting me. Everyone on here who doesn't speak English as a first language is potentially not competent. DaneGeld (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
But that's just it--the community ban is what fixed it. Per Chenzw, it's the community part that stood out to me--I just got pissed off at the blocking admin beforehand Computer Fizz (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm having a hard time with this one.
I'll note, first of all, that this user does seem to be subject to WP:ONESTRIKE at this point. And if an admin goes in that direction, s/he will have what to stand on.
Beyond that, the truth is that this user is, to quote myself (thank you, @Chenzw), a pretty good wikilawyer. Almost any one of his edits can probably be justified by a certain perspective on the policy or guideline in question. In my view, what this comes down to is a balance between "anyone can edit" and the smooth functioning of this community.
Figure that in really small wikis (like Ladino Wikipedia, where I'm a sysop), there are so few contributors that you take what you can get, within reason. You only step in if there's a serious violation of the rules. In really large wikis (like English Wikipedia), the community is so large and diverse that you really cannot say that someone's "style" is disruptive; you have to rely on a reading of the rules to create some order.
In a community this size, however, things aren't quite the same. A community this size has a culture that is important to its functioning. Yet someone can come in and disrupt that culture, arguably within a technical reading of the rules. That's where we are right now.
Thus, the community has been trying to tell @Sju hav that it interprets policies and guidelines a certain way. Yes, it concedes, there are potentially other ways to look at the policies and guidelines. But that's not how we do things here. And we'd really like you to stick to the culture we've created here; we don't want to become a place that is overly burdened by specific rules. And the user has basically said that he doesn't care—as long as there's an interpretation that works for him, he will do things just the way he pleases, even if it doesn't fit the community's general approach to the problem. So as a result he's made himself a real pain in the backside—someone greatly disrupting the culture here—and yet has done so in a way that probably just technically stays within the rules.
Now, all that said: the idea of Wikipedia as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is pretty powerful. Several people here are very big on that. @Auntof6, for one, tries very hard to avoid issuing blocks that many other admins would make because she believes so strongly in this. So what has priority here? "Anyone can edit"? Or the smooth functioning of this community in order to facilitate the creation of the encyclopedia?
On the whole, while I'm going to reserve final judgment, I'm inclined to think that we need a limited-duration community ban right now. We need a break from Sju hav, and yet we need to give one more chance before preventing him from editing the encyclopedia "that anyone can edit". While ONESTRIKE can be applied here, I'm not sure that we need to invoke the nuclear option just yet.
At the same time, Sju hav, you need to think about why we really don't seem to want you around here. We're not interested in spending a lot of time arguing; we could all go to English Wikipedia if we wanted to do that. So, Sju hav, can you live here and get along with the community? Can you do things someone else's way in order to try to keep a sense of harmony in the community? Or does it have to be your way? Because if it has to be your way, we might as well just indef you now and stop arguing. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have read the first 2 sentences of your post. You are saying, more or less that some/many of my edits seem to not contribute to the smooth running of the community. I will take that to heart.
(Please try not to use the term wiki-lawyering, later in this discussion. In popular culture, a person who "lawyers-up" is arguably, more or less guilty. Arguably, "wiki-lawyering" is a stigmatizing term, more or less. It is likely/possible that more than one person here thinks that the term is stigmatizing and perhaps somewhat unnecessary.) Sju hav (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think StevenJ81's use of the term is "unnecessary"; on the contrary, I think it is perfectly acceptable given the evidence - you are engaged in wikilawyering, and using any other less "stigmatizing" term does not change the fact. Chenzw  Talk  12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
In hindsight, I must accept that quite a few (or many) of my edits have not contributed to the smooth running of the community.
Labelling me (or anyone) as a wiki-criminal, has perhaps never been the way things are done on Wikipedia.
Okay, please continue to label me as a wiki-lawyer, and also please label me at the same time as a wiki-criminal.
To me, the stigma is about the same.
I regret that I did not try hard enough, to accept the wiki-lawyer label, earlier on.
I will try to reply in fewer words, if I feel that my reply can add something more or less significant.
In the minutes or hours that this thread might be open, I will try to remember to reply at least one time with: Perhaps I should not say that I disagree. I will try to tie my tongue, for every post that someone else makes.
Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
No one ever said that wiki-lawyer = "wiki-criminal". It is your own problem if you want to victimize yourself. I take issue with your statement that "Labelling me (or anyone) as a wiki-criminal, has perhaps never been the way things are done on Wikipedia." What exactly are you trying to insinuate? "[R]eply(ing) in fewer words" is only part of the solution; you need to stop your backhanded comments, and before someone takes it as an issue with WP:CIVIL. Also, in response to "Perhaps I should not say that I disagree. I will try to tie my tongue, for every post that someone else makes." - no one said that you cannot disagree with something. Chenzw  Talk  01:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Arguably a picture has been painted of me (at Simple Talk and at wp:AfD), as a
wiki-shyster, but only using the labels "wiki-lawyer"/"wiki-lawyering".
That many disagree with my view in this post - I am not arguing that.
Perhaps you and I can agree to disagree on the neutrality of the contextual use of "wiki-lawyering" and "wiki-lawyer".
Comment - Since yesterday, it has dawned on me, that I will be banned (with a block unlikely at this point in time, and other options even less likely).
I have enjoyed editing, and I hope that some of the edits have been found useful.
If I had put effort in staying away from discussion pages, perhaps this proposal for ban would not have happened, or not have happened as early as this time.
If I had put more of my questions/concerns on my discussion page, instead of Simple Talk, perhaps this proposal for ban would not have happened, or not have happened as early as this time.
It is my claim that I have matured somewhat since January. (I have not been tempted at being a sockpuppet, even when blocked for one month at Danish, early in the summer. Before January (and for parts of January?), I had no intention of heeding blocks or bans that were supposed to last for more than one month. When I got the Danish-wiki block - one month - then I made a conscious effort to respect blocks and bans, from then on (, and as a continuance of my respect since January, of the en-wiki ban.)
Even if my claim were to be taken at face value, or found to be a reasonable claim, it might not make any difference in this discussion.
Have I ever been unfairly treated at wikipedia?
My answer is "pehaps not treated unfairly".
If there is any unfairness on wikipedia,
it is in my opinion so insignificant, that I can not see it. Sju hav (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
(I have not read any of the edits since yesterday evening. If this thread is not closed by tomorrow, hopefully by then I will have seen and answered anything that the admins might (now) feel that I have not answered clearly). Done. Sju hav (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OpposeSupport. I think the restrictions suggested by Peterdownunder are sufficient enough. The community ban is definitely much too harsh, and Sju hav's edits have been better since the proposal was started. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 23:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved to support due to this change. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Communty ban: as a net negative to the project, tiresome and as entirely outlined by Chenzw, both an administrator and bureaucrat here on Simple Wikipedia. If it is enough for Chenzw, there is certainly enough listed, named and observed by me, an editor. Thank you, Fylbecatulous talk 00:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment from the one, on trial here - @StevenJ81:

You have perhaps the best overall "SITREP":
"So, Sju hav, can you live here and get along with the community? Can you do things someone else's way in order to try to keep a sense of harmony in the community?"
Answer: I see only one good choice for me: To gladly "do things someone else's way in order to try to keep a sense of harmony in the community". And in that way "live here and get along with the community".
I have probably put another nail in my coffin by contacting you-know-who today. Perhaps I was overwhelmed by a slight aroma this week - an aroma that did not spill over to Simple-wiki. Congratulations for keeping the air clean. Thank you! Sju hav (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Being "indirectly" banned or blocked from Deutsch-wiki - without the end-of-punishment date (for that wiki)[change source]

I would prefer, that I do not experience the following "collateral damage (en)": Being banned or blocked from Deutsch-wiki - without also being given an exact date, for when the (upcoming) punishment will end (, in regard to editing at Deutsch-wiki).
I have done the linked edits, on wiki-Deutsch [4].
I believe that I have not done stuff there, that I have done on other Wikipedias: Discussing things in a manner that a large part of administrators might (or do) not like; or
write in not-good-enough Danish language, or
write in not-good-enough Swedish language.
My edits on Deutsch-wiki have been quite disciplined.
(I take for granted that one can muster five or fifty or more wikipedians, to show a majority view, "more or less", that I also should be banned from Deutsch-wiki, forever.
I am not arguing that. (And respect the idea, that the previous two sentences (or cirka 40 words) here, is not text that should be common in wiki-discussions. I am using those words, because I do not have a university degree in communication ...)
I am simply asking if there are any adequate reasons, why any ban (or block) that will concern Deutsch-wiki,
should not have an end-of-punishment date (for that wiki). Sju hav (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
My edits (on Deutsch-wiki) have been quite limited in scope,
and have been in regard to cirka 4 different topics:
two Norwegian authors, and
one Norwegian painter, and
Diskussion:Laos.
Since Dezember 2016, cirka one edit, about each topic.
(And I have mentioned my interest in Sword of Grossenwieden, and mentioned my "work about" (being the first, and so far only)
to "spread the German article", to another Wikipedia - simple-wiki).
Thank you. Sju hav (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not see the relevance of your edits on dewiki in this discussion, or you are not stating the relevance clearly. Your "prefer[ence], that I do not experience the following collateral damage" is invalid for 2 reasons:
  • You do not get to choose whether you are subject to "collateral damage".
  • There is no "collateral damage" anyway, for blocks on this wiki do not automatically carry forward to other wikis. Since, as you said, your edits on dewiki "have been quite disciplined", nothing will happen to you on dewiki.
"I take for granted that one can muster five or fifty or more wikipedians, to show a majority view, 'more or less', that I also should be banned ..." - are you trying to insinuate that I, as the ban proposer, am leading an unjustified lynch mob against you? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is your last warning. I will report you to another administrator the next time I see you trying to slander me. One does not need a "university degree in communication" to communicate well. Chenzw  Talk  12:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see, I am the only one here who does not have a good reputation.
No one is involved in a campaign against me. (There is no campaign against me.)
What I tried to say, was more or less: "I have just written a paragraph, and I can imagine that many (or even a majority) do object (or might object), to the content of my paragraph; be that as it may, I am asking the community to refrain from immediately jumping on the opportunity to say: Sju hav, your opinion is totally wrong, and then having three or fifty more doing the same thing (over the next 12 hours or couple of days);
Furthermore, what I tried to say: I already accept that my view in the paragraph, is likely to "have views (from other wikipedians) that are opposite of mine". And that is a fair matter, in a democratic system.
I do not have a university degree in Communication. It is unfortunate if something I have written, will widely be understood (or read) as the opposite of what I was trying to say (or as anything that I was not trying to say). Sju hav (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello all, I think it would be time to calm down. First of all: Looking at Sju hav's edits I see many edits on User/User talk/Talk/Project pages, and relatively few on content (most of them: List of ...). I haven't counted, but I'd say it is about two thirds to one third. Secondly: We can take into account that Sju hav was banned at another wikis, but we should assess whether he gets banned here based solely on the work done on this wiki. I recently wrote two stubs about Middle Eastern scientists. I neither have any relation to the Middle East, nor to the fields of science these people were active in. So the question should not be: is everyone an expert in the subject he/she writes articles about (in that case Wikipedia would not exist). I think in the end, it is the fact that I have a helpful attitude. And yes: I do have a university degree in communication science, but I don't think it matters. Willy Brandt got a Nobel prize for his work, and he did not have a university education at all; he simply started writing as a journalist, and with the time he improved. In short: what we are looking for are editors with a helpful attitude; we also accept them without Nobel prize, or university degree (though for mathematics it would more likely be the Fields medal). Some other clarifications: In my opinion, this issue (community ban) should be settled 20th September, at the latest; I also think it would be good that a bureaucrat take the decision, but thats just my opinion. --Eptalon (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ban proposal[change source]

I have been following the above discussion closely, and also watching everything Sju hav has been editing. It is clear that his actions have created concerns for the community. It is also clear that the community want action taken to resolve the issues fairly. Sju hav does have a record of problems on other wikis, which does mean that he can be treated under our one strike rule. At this time, I propose some restrictions on Sju hav's edits, which can be reviewed again in six months. If he is unable, or unwilling to follow the restrictions, then an immediate and indefinite ban would be put in place. The restrictions cover the areas that have created this discussion in the first place. I also suggest that one or two experienced editors work with Sju hav as mentors, and that he communicates with them on his talk page.

  1. No discussions about what is happening/or has happened on other wikis.
  2. No complaints about the actions of other editors or administrators.
  3. No extended discussions about our policies or practices ("wikilawyering")
  4. No creation of new list pages
  5. Questions to be restricted to his talk page where his mentors will engage with him
  6. Demonstrate competence in Simple English through the creation of stubs on the people that he has already added to lists.

I would like other editors to comment on the above restrictions, Sju hav is not to comment please, but to listen. I am prepared to act as a mentor, and would welcome another person to assist.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support something along these lines, in part because I see Sju hav making better contributions lately. However, I would also like to hear from Sju hav about whether he/she would cooperate with this. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest no editing of existing list pages, either. Some of the editor's recent work has been unproductive formatting and organizing of existing list pages. I also suggest making it clear that this is a trial, and not a guarantee that a block or ban won't happen. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am thinking "5." could perhaps say something like
Questions - which ordinarily might belong on Simple Talk - to be restricted to his talk page where his mentors will engage with him.
I am thinking "6." could perhaps say:
Demonstrate competence in Simple English through the creation of stubs on people that he has already added to lists.
What this thread is saying, sounds like it could be worth a try. (If some object to the wording in the last sentence - I still have not started work on my university degree in Communication.) Sju hav (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Having a "List creation quota" of "4 over a 7-day period", where any such List has at least 4 "blue-link main subjects".
I have no plans about creating 4 lists every week - however I think my suggestion is reasonable. Sju hav (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sju hav: you were asked not to comment in this section while we consider an option other than a complete ban. For the record, though, I would oppose your suggested change to #5. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely thrilled to pieces with number 2, stopping Sju hav from making complaints about other editors or administrators effectively creates a one sided debate. If someone does something which is wrong, he should have the option to make a complaint (maybe through another user, to clarify whether it's a valid complaint). To simply remove his right to complain isn't an ideal thing. Other than that, the rest of the proposal looks good - certainly better than simply kicking him out! DaneGeld (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll perhaps put it differently (I know it is more difficult to manage): I see Sju Hav as a full member of our community, and I (along with other editors) value his/her edits on content pages. I also think that in the context of finding someone else do something inapproporiate ("vandals"), Sju Hav should have the possibility ot bring this behaviour to the attention of admins/vanval fighters/etc; Same with content pages: Questions about whether a certain section in an article is appropriate should go to that article's talk page (as is common for such a procedure). I'd put it differently: at least half of the Sju Hav's edits go to content pages (That is: articles/article talk pages); as to new List pages: I partly agree, as to discussions about rules/procedures: I also agree. Other wikis do not interest us as much, so discussions on those do not need restriction, as they likely will not occur. "Simple Enlgish" (If it really exists is somrething that can be acquired; so I'd suggest: When there are 20-30 stubs (not list of.., but articles about subjects/people) where Sju Have has contributed, two editors look at those stubs; if they are deemed ok, we talk again? --Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll rephrase to be in line with the others: Support the Proposal of Peterdownunder, oppose original ban; Peter's proposal to be modified, as follows:
  • Item 1 (No discussions on what is happening/has happened on other wikis) is not necessary, and can be left out
  • Item 2:(Complaints about other editors' actions): To go the normal route, that is: report to vandalism in progress, perhaps mention on WP:AN/WP:ST
  • Item 3, Item 6 (Wikilawyering,Competence) Unchanged
  • Item 4: (Creation of new List pages): In accordance with mentors, max. 25 % of the edits
  • Item 5: (Questions) Q's on articles on the article's Talk page; free on other questions, which will mostly land on his/her talk page, or mentors' talk pages
  • Item 7 (new): At least half of Sju Hav's edits are in main space (Article/Article talk)
Re-assessment six months from the start of these restrictions.--Eptalon (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems like a pretty good proposal, though it would need some tweaks. Definitely much better than the community ban, considering Sju hav's edits have improved significantly over the past week or so. DaneGeld also made a good point with number 2, I think Sju hav should at least be able to point certain things out, though in a civil manner. As for Sju hav's suggestion with regards to list articles, I would oppose completely. In my opinion, it's too soon to tell whether or not Sju hav can be trusted with creating list articles, as the fiasco (as I would call it) happened not too long ago, though I think that by the time the review in six months, that restriction can be eased. Other than that, I support this proposal. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 02:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved to oppose due to this change. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm good with this. As for 2 & 3, I assume Sju hav's concerns would be brought up on his talk page for mentors to assess suitability to move into regular discussion pages? And as Eptalon said, article discussion would happen in the article talk page. List articles I would prefer only a month restriction on creating, even if other restrictions are longer. --Tbennert (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, while I'm not comfortable being a mentor, I am comfortable in helping with simplifying/wikifying articles and would gladly engage with Sju hav on article talk pages. --Tbennert (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a point of note, at this point the original ban proposal is sitting at 5 for and 1 reject with a the typical one week period almost up. I realize another discussion is going on here on an alternative, but people will need to indicate one way or the other on the original or it will pass. I am not against Peter's proposal, but I think the mentoring thing will just add to the problem as it will be sucking up the time of what few editors we have. That being said if we do go with the alternate #4 is key. This is what seems to be causing most of his problems. He needs a topic ban from list articles no matter what happens. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I would support this proposal but I have an issue with 2 - Everyone should have a right to complain about editors or admins providing it's an actual legitimate complaint and not the crap Sju had previously been doing, Anyway everyone deserves a second chance and it goes without saying if any of those above (except 2) are violated then they be indeffed . –Davey2010Talk 15:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • With 2 the editor should stick to making complaints on their talkpage and an admin/mentor could look at them and decide if it's actionable but it should be noted Sju shouldn't fill up their page with complaints, As I said everyone deserves to make legit complaints about anyone providing it's in a civil and meaningful manner. –Davey2010Talk 15:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose in light of their actions below (See my above comment). –Davey2010Talk 02:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Peter's proposal; oppose (for now) original ban. I'm ok with a few tweaks here and there to the "where he can comment" question, especially after the first month. I think the ban on list articles needs to be absolute for at least a month, then limited to one or two a week, subject to requirements discussed elsewhere. One of the mentors should be an administrator, who will be free to invoke ONESTRIKE without further discussion. I disagree with the point made by @DJSasso: there has been sufficient discussion of an alternative here to make it clear that the community is seeking an alternative to the original proposal. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Sigh. Have to change to a support of a community ban. I would add that we should not entertain a removal of that ban for a year (at minimum). StevenJ81 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not really, there at the time of my comment were less people commenting in this section than had commented up there. But like I said, I am fine with if the community wants to try something else, as long as they are aware he will be blocked at even the slightest grey area due to WP:ONESTRIKE since any admin is free to block on those grounds anyway. This ban discussion was more about do we want to make sure the community has to be consulted if he is unblocked at en than it was about should we block him now or not since he already meets the criteria for a block. A one strike block would mean unblocking here when he was unblocked there whereas a community one wouldn't mean he could be unblocked automatically. A lot of effort is being put into figuring an alternative out that I suspect won't last more than a couple days. (and I make that prediction because he is currently still editing list articles when anyone that had clue would know when there is a discussion going on to block your editing of list articles you should probably hold off until the discussion is done) -DJSasso (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Peter's proposal - I want this resolved quickly and so I am fine to accept the proposal exactly as written. Any non-compliance during the 6 months should result in an immediate community onestrike as previously supported. That said, I support the original ban proposal if this one is not accepted.--Tbennert (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to oppose, support original proposal by Chenzw. To me it's more about what was being posted at the talk page - complaints (old ones) about another editor and discussion of events on other wiki's. That's two of Peter's compromise points. And super easy ones. Then there are things like the List of scientists article, which seems counter to the spirit of the RFD closure. It started as what Lists of scientists became and now is just a recreation of other list pages - along with lots of main page hatnotes. Also causing me to think community consensus will not be followed, and wasting even more time. --Tbennert (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tbennert: Could you be clearer? There is no such thing as a "community onestrike". There are bans, which are community decisions and require community decisions to undo, and there are blocks based on the onestrike provision, which would be at an admin's discretion to implement or undo. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What Djsasso said about the community discussion meaning he wouldn't be unblocked automatically. Sorry I'm using the wrong words. I meant the original ban proposal put forth by Chenzw should be what happens if Sju hav does not follow the restrictions. Basically, I don't want another community discussion required when he doesn't comply. --Tbennert (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'm not going to voice an opinion on the ban or block proposal here, but I would ask the community to consider the fact that it does not appear that a welcome template was applied to this user's talk page when editing first started. Those templates are not just a nice way of saying "hi and welcome" but they also contain important links to our policies and guidelines -- policies and guidelines that might have been useful back when the user was getting started here on Simple. We really need to reconsider the practice of waiting for an editor to figure out those rules on their own, submit good edits for awhile, and then welcoming them. Etamni | ✉   12:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    We aren't really waiting awhile for them to make good edits then welcoming them. We only require that they make a single edit. Feel free to welcome them as soon as they have made an edit. Just don't welcome them as soon as they create an account as that upsets many many many editors. I know it drives me nuts when I get the spam messages when I haven't even edited on a wiki but because unified login created an account on another wiki. It is unlikely we are going to block a user immediately for no knowing our policies after a single edit unless they do something particularly awful that they would have known wasn't cool even without links. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Well FWIW I was never welcomed here (and still haven't been) and I've got on alright, All the various links are easily accessible on the sidebar but IMHO I don't believe a template would've changed anything. –Davey2010Talk 00:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Struck as per this so my point's now moot lol, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't tell if this discussion is still open or not but if it is I think peter's proposal is a good idea. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked Sju hav indefinitely[change source]

I have blocked the user indefinitely per the one strike policy for his continued "I didn't hear that" actions. He's currently under discussion here for a possible ban or modified topic ban, yet still insists on conducting himself in ways we're saying shouldn't happen such as his recent continued soapboxing at Jimbo's talk page. The community discussion should continue here about banning or not. At this time, however, I think the indefinite block is necessary as his behaviors are continuing even while under the scrutiny of this discussion.

As always, my actions are reviewable by the community at large. I believe that Sju hav should remain blocked as we settle the matters above. Only (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say this @Only:, seeing as how Sju had been trying to sort his stuff out, I agree with your block. He knew what he was letting himself in for, he knew the terms and the offer that was discussed...the sign warning of the landmines was on the floor and he still stepped on them. I believe in second chances, but there's only so many you can give people before they become less of a new start, and more "taking the mickey". DaneGeld (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a note: I'm sure Only appreciates people agreeing with the indef block, but be aware that input is not being solicited on that. Input is still being solicited on the community ban (see above), so please weigh in on that if you haven't already, keeping in mind that a community ban can be undone only with another community discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Auntof6. I think it's more just a show of support for the admin, since they're saying their actions are reviewable. In my opinion, no review is needed (others may disagree), but for what it's worth, I have now moved my rejection of the original ban to a support. Let's get this chapter closed. DaneGeld (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And this pretty much summed up my comments above re him still doing the things that we were saying he shouldn't do while we were discussing them. Frankly at this point I would encourage people to go above and support and outright community ban. If he couldn't fix his issues while the discussion was going on, what hope does giving him more chances provide? -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately had to be done. So...what's the plan with this community ban thing? You said it would continue but if a consensus is reached would they be unblocked? Computer Fizz (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
A ban (aka "community ban") is put in place following a community discussion when the consensus is in favor of the ban. For a ban to be lifted, there has to be another community discussion where the consensus is to lift the ban. Any community member can propose imposing or removing a ban. Admins cannot impose or remove these bans on their own. Note that this is for full bans, not topic bans: topic bans can be imposed and removed by admins, but that is not the kind being discussed here. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I meant what's the progress on this discussion, not "what is a community ban". Cause it's now the 9th and I don't see a consensus yet and even though it's not my job to come up with one I'm just a bit confused. Computer Fizz (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation / Summary[change source]

Hello all, this is just a summary / counting:

  • Currently two thirds of those who commented are in favor of a complete ban, as proposed by Chenzw
  • One third are in favor of a topic ban (either the version of Peterdownunder, or variations of it)

Which means that a community ban can be / is imposed (user is already banned). If someone feels that my counting is inaccurate / wrong, please say so. If no one does, a new discussion can start in April 2018, at the earliest. --Eptalon (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the evaluation. User was already blocked, not banned, but can now be considered banned. A discussion about unbanning can take place at the specified time if the banned user requests it. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel[change source]

Hi, Could someone revdel this, this and this please, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 14:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Davey2010: For future reference, things that require admin action are better reported at WP:AN. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure why I ever asked here as it's not exactly the appropriate place!, But anyway thanks will do :) –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing the name of a project page[change source]

Ok, I'm going to try and be as clear as possible to put my point across. I'd like to propose changing the name of the project page Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. I'm asking to do this, because this project is meant to be simple. The impression that the title of this page gives, is that when someone is vandalising Wikipedia, they get reported here, because the vandalism is in progress; if it wasn't, you wouldn't be reporting it! The problem is, as I experienced yesterday in an encounter with Enfcer, that you don't report it while the vandalism is in progress, you report it after you've already knocked yourself out and issued a level 4 warning, by which time the vandal is probably well underway and there's a ****load of stuff to undo.

I believe that the title of the page currently gives the wrong impression of its purpose. Surely, it would be better that we can tell someone in the early stages that vandalism is being committed, rather than waiting for the trail of destruction to grow to the point where there's a lot more work for people to do to clean it up, no?

To be told the person has been "insufficiently warned", and you're not going to do anything until they have been, defeats the entire object of reporting the vandalism as being in progress. If it's in progress, should you not deal with it? Your thoughts please? DaneGeld (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it is for vandalism that is in progress. However, admins can use their discretion to decide it is or is not at the point of blocking yet. In some cases we block immediately but that is pretty rare, in most cases you are going to give a few warnings before we block. That is generally how it works at all wikis. The purpose of that page is mainly just to make sure we as admin notice someone is vandalizing since we don't have as many eyes on the recent changes as some of the larger wikis. But if you are hoping we will block on first edit, that rarely happens unless the vandalism is particularly bad. It is still however, about letting us know vandalism is happening at this moment, so that it pops up on our watchlist and so we can keep an eye on it when it crosses the point of blocking. -DJSasso (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the intro on that page needs to be more clear about what to report and what is not ready to be reported. This issue has come up repeatedly. Etamni | ✉   15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
To be honest I think the real problem is a few admin might be a bit over zealous on the exact number of warnings instead of using common sense in some cases. There are many many cases where one warning is enough. But some admins insist on going through the whole range of warnings. -DJSasso (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @Auntof6: cause s/he has a strong opinion on warnings. As for my own input, generally you report it after they vandalize after the fourth warning, which implies that vandalism is still "in progress". Computer Fizz (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah this has been argued about more than a few times. I personally never go above 3 warnings. If it is obvious that are just trying to vandalize I rarely go past 2 warnings. If it is quite bad vandalism they will get an only warning. And if it is very horrendous there is likely no warning and blocked as a vandalism only account. There is no policy that requires warnings. -DJSasso (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Aunt always seems to reject as "insufficiently warned" if all 4 aren't used. I think we need to agree on what is mandatory and all admins should use it, because having different things happen depending on who you ask is not that clear and-or helpful Computer Fizz (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
That's most of the problem, Computer Fizz. But to me, the wording says it all. In progress. In progress says that something is occurring or happening at that moment. For me, as soon as they start vandalizing, it's in progress. But we do need a standard system that everyone agrees with and sticks to. When you ask for help, that help should be the same, no matter who you ask. DaneGeld (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree, the whole Wikipedia policy/guideline system is built on the idea that it is flexible and can change based on the situation as needed in order to help the wiki. We don't have hard and fast rules beyond things like BLP. See WP:IAR for example. Like I said above, notify that page, you either will get the person blocked or you won't. That page is only a notification system. -DJSasso (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Not always. Many times I've caught active vandals that weren't reported at VIP yet and blocked them with no warnings. Blocks are to prevent damage, and if damage is in progress I do stop it. We may disagree on how much time there can be between edits and still have it be currently in progress. I look at the intervals between the edits already done, and compare that to the amount of time since the last edit. In some cases, I would have blocked if I'd seen a report sooner, but by the time I see it there's more of a gap. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There is such a policy. Wikipedia:Blocks and bans says "Users should be warned with the right warning templates before administrators block them. However, administrators can block a user at any time if they are abusing Wikipedia on purpose or going against other policies." This does give exceptions, but states that warnings should be given. Still, it might be worth discussing.
If you only do 2 or 3 warnings, then what are the higher-level ones for? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts!) Providing warnings and a chance to change behavior are part of the "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia. (See, WP:Assume good faith.) Those policies do not require a specific number of warnings either. And they clearly allow evidence of bad intent to be considered. Personally, I'm fine with generally requiring a specific number of warnings before taking action. That said, I believe we need to re-think the timelines for warnings (e.g. what is "recent enough") and recognize that some vandals aren't paying attention to the calendar when they vandalize. A properly applied final warning made on the last day of the month should still be final, if there is more vandalism from the same source the next day or next week. Etamni | ✉   07:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
We also need to keep in mind that the process is different for registered anbd unregistered users. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If it's obvious after one or two warnings that the IP or user has no intention of stopping, then that should be what it takes to get them dealt with. I would say we don't need a level 4, because by the time you get to level 4, there's a lot to clean up. We should have an immediate warning for really severe vandalism that anyone can issue. So we find multiple vandalism that would need individual warnings issued for each piece, and hit them with that instead. But it's still in progress, and we're deviating from the discussion over what's in progress :) DaneGeld (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I never use the level 1 warning. I only use the higher ones, I find the level 1 warning's wording to have little value as such I always start at level 2. Wikipedia:Blocks and bans only says to use the the right warning templates. Which means use the wording that fits the situation. It doesn't say to use all of them. It also says should not must. Admins are made admins so they can make the sorts of judgement calls this flexibility allows for. Wikipedia has things like WP:IAR specifically as people can do things that help the wiki even if that help seems to contradict rules. To be honest I am not sure when the culture here changed to be so attached to the number of warnings. There was a time when people here were rarely warned more than twice and when they were it was usually cause the vandalism happened over days. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As an occasional minor editor and vandal-reverter here (but never really enough to be worth using an account) it's quite striking how much editor time gets wasted on vandals and warning templates. Especially when there's an edit war to stop IPs from deleting the templates, something that English Wikipedia doesn't seem to mind. Personally, I find that so passive-agressive and silly that I usually just go away after reverting vandals, without giving them a warning. For all that this community takes pride in not being the big English Wikipedia, you have copied its complicated warning system pretty much unchanged. Unless there's a central wiki rule that everyone has to use four warning levels, I can't see see why you don't use something more Simple. IMHO, a "good faith" and a "bad faith" template would be enough, with the good faith one assuming lack of clue (and giving links like in the welcome template) while the bad faith one would warn of an immediate block. They could be written so the bad faith one makes sense either on its own, or as a second warning after the good faith one. 129.67.116.242 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that the name of this page is confusing. As Etamni noted, it would be good to have an intro giving explanation of what should be reported and an idea of when. Until recently I didn't know that is where I should report someone vandalizing after a level 4, because it's usually on my watchlist and not "in progress". As for how many warnings and how far between, that should have flexibilty. I agree it is frustrating to be required to follow all 4 in a specific (unknown) amount of time. So honestly I often just revert the issue and don't bother with a warning since they don't seem to matter. --Tbennert (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

place for research summary on Simple Wikipedia?[change source]

Hi Simple Wikipedians, I recently did a presentation on Simple Wikipedia for a linguistics class. I did a bit of background research and would like to share the information. There have been several linguistics studies that use Simple English Wikipedia for various things like creating a text simplification corpus. Is there a place on Simple Wikipedia to put that kind of thing, or does it belong somewhere else (like on meta?)? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of a place that is really appropriate here. What will probably happen is that you will upload the file to Commons, write what you want about it somewhere on Meta, and announce it here at Simple talk. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thank you! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Welcome-en[change source]

I just used Template:Welcome-en and saw that it links to Wikipedia:Active users. I think that should be removed from the template since it's old and not likely to be updated. Maybe add a note to look at New changes to see who's active? Is there a better page to link to? --Tbennert (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Support I literally just opened up simple-talk to make this same suggestion. A user self-welcomed with that template -- it (the active user list) is horrendously out of date, and truthfully, I don't think anyone is interested in updating it on a regular basis. The link can simply be removed from the template -- a replacement is not needed. It might not be a bad idea to mark the page as being kept for historical purposes as well, lest someone still find it by accident and not realize its status. Etamni | ✉   15:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. Seems unnecessary, especially if the page needs to be updated every so often, and per Etamni, tag the page as kept for historical purposes. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 15:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have a strong feeling about this. But we could just use Special:ActiveUsers, though that doesn't provide any helpful detail. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
An active user, according to Special:ActiveUsers is considered any user who was made 1 action in the past 30 days. That's not an accurate representation of the handful of active editors we have here. I think it's best to take it out of the template all together. --Eurodyne (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Technically the page we are talking about is meant to show active uses that are willing to help people out, not just active users, it is only a subset of active users. Think of it as a list of ambassadors. -DJSasso (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If it was being kept up to date, it would work fine for that purpose. As is, it includes some infrequent editors and others who haven't edited anything in a long time. It's misleading. Better to direct folks to Simple Talk and allow those who are willing to help to answer any questions there. Etamni | ✉   06:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with removing it, I was just pointing out why we wouldn't really replace the link with just the link to active users. -DJSasso (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment. The Template:Welcome-iw also has the same issue. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 19:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment. Seeing no objections, I have removed the link from the two templates mentioned above and added the historical template to the outdated active users page. Both templates direct users to Simple Talk if they have questions. Etamni | ✉   06:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye[change source]

Hello,

As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process is ending and strategic direction is to be finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.

The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.

Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Centenarians[change source]

We recently had several articles created that fall into Category:Centenarians and its subcategories. It appears that many of the new articles, and the old ones, do not meet general notability guidelines. en:Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People recommends that those who do not meet the criteria for a stand alone article should be placed in a list article instead. Rather than create a Request for Deletion for each article affected, I wanted to see if we could agree here to follow the redirect recommendation. The only issue I see is that we do not have a list article for each country. That could possibly be solved with using a by continent approach. (Note: I have left a message at User talk:24.190.40.112 the creator of the new articles to join the discussion) --Tbennert (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You could make a group RfD request, or maybe just list the questionable ones here to save everyone else repeating the work of looking for those themselves. As far as notability, I guess the question is whether merely being a centenarian makes a person notable, regardless of whether there are reliable sources. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The question is - can we agree that oldest living people, with no reason for notability other than age, should be redirected to a list article? I'm not asking anyone to look at all the articles, or even one. The question is a general one. And as for sources there are usually some easy to get for the age, so there are some reliable sources, but only for age. --Tbennert (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
No we can't really agree with that as some definitely are notable. Those who are not can certainly be. -DJSasso (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess that someone who wasn't notable before does not become notable, just because he/she turns 100. But now just imagine, there is a person you see on TV/in the media all the time (a socialite), and that person just turned 100... Life expetancy is different, per country; so, in a country where people "die young", turning, say 80 might make someone notable. However, this is hard to verify, and hard to put in a category, even without Simple English. Looking at the sheer number of people we have there, we should think about re-classifying. --Eptalon (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
They do if newspapers write articles about them. People often confuse the Wikipedia's concept of Notability with the general concept of notability. Things are notable if they are written about in reliable sources when it comes to Wikipedia. Now of course not all Centenarians are written about when they turn 100. But those that become the oldest in their region often are. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: I have blocked the IP user and deleted the articles on individual people. They were poorly written BLPs. The user has been blocked before on the English Wikipedia for similar issues, so I have done the same here. I have not deleted the list articles, though. Those can be handled via RFD if desired. Only (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed edit to our local version of Twinkle[change source]

This might be just my preference, but I feel like the "additional message" part of Twinkle should not result in italics, but rather being added as normal text. There is a way to get around this, but it results in '' '' being everywhere. What do y'all think? Computer Fizz (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

presenting the project Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory and asking for a vounteer in Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

Hello everyone, My name is Marc Miquel and I am a researcher from Barcelona (Universitat Pompeu Fabra). While I was doing my PhD I studied whether an identity-based motivation could be important for editor participation and I analyzed content representing the editors' cultural context in 40 Wikipedia language editions. Few months later, I propose creating the Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory in order to raise awareness on Wikipedia’s current state of cultural diversity, providing datasets, visualizations and statistics, and pointing out solutions to improve intercultural coverage.

I am presenting this project to a grant and I expect that the site becomes a useful tool to help communities create more multicultural encyclopaedias and bridge the content culture gap that exists across language editions (one particular type of systemic bias). For instance, this would help spreading cultural content local to Simple English Wikipedia into the rest of Wikipedia language editions, and viceversa, make Simple English Wikipedia much more multicultural. Here is the link of the project proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_Cultural_Diversity_Observatory_(WCDO)

I am searching for a volunteer in each language community: I still need one for the Simple English Wikipedia. If you feel like it, you can contact me at: marcmiquel *at* gmail.com I need a contact in your every community who can (1) check the quality of the cultural context article list I generate to be imported-exported to other language editions, (2) test the interface/data visualizations in their language, and (3) communicate the existance of the tool/site when ready to the language community and especially to those editors involved in projects which could use it or be aligned with it. Communicating it might not be a lot of work, but it will surely have a greater impact if done in native language! :). If you like the project, I'd ask you to endorse it in the page I provided. In any case, I will appreciate any feedback, comments,... Thanks in advance for your time! Best regards, --Marcmiquel (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

Community ban proposals on their own page?[change source]

Hello all, looking at Simple talk right now we have the Community ban proposal taking up most space, plus a few short other items. I think it would be a good idea to have ban proposals on their own (sub?)page. There could be a short link on Simple Talk to the ban proposal/discussion, as long as it was running. What do other editors think about the idea? --Eptalon (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, this is the page that it very much belongs on. The idea being it sees the widest set of eyes. Secondly the page is fairly short so it isn't that big a deal. It will archive soon enough. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn is 60th good article[change source]

Hello all, just wanted to let you know that I promoted Jeremy Corbyn to Good Article status. Thanks to all for helping. It was the first promotion this year, does the community think we should re-vitalize the process? --Eptalon (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to look into some new very good articles to be featured on the main page as well. --Eurodyne (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you think of any candidates, which could be made into (Very) Good Articles, with relatively little effort? --Eptalon (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions about two articles[change source]

Dear All,
I made an article DJ Mixify and Khodadad Movaghar I want to know if it's possible to give the answer back to me if it will be delect or not I'm waiting since several days. (I hope it will not be delect ) Thanks a lot پریسا دارک لگ (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. In general, we do not delete new articles if they are notable. The one about the General Khodadad Movaghar, probably is; I am not too sure about the first one you created about the DJ. In any case, most articles go through a deletion process, and the articles currently nominated can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. Since I cannot write Persian, adding interwiki links would be helpful, though. --Eptalon (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear All,
I made an article Jaleh Movaghar and I'm waiting , could you please tell me if it will be delect or not ? (I hope it will not be delect) . Another question please : about DJ Mixify Somebody told me Cinaps TV ans Télé Bocal it's too much local TV Channel and it 's no good as sources for Wikipedia but DJ will got on MTV Base America and MTV Itaie site (coming soon) an artiste page and even on MTV channel TV I want to know if it's possible to made then the article DJ Mixify . Thanks a lot Best پریسا دارک لگ (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I think it is a good idea to look at our deletion policy,as well as our page on notability. If an article fails the notability guideline, it will probably be deleted. For people, to be notable means that (among others) there are independent sources/articles about them. There might be an article in Arabic or Persian language wikipedia (sorry: I see the script is Arabic, but I can't tell which of the serveral languages that use the script it is; Urdu, and a few Indian languages also use the script). In short: use your favorite search engine, if you find the Simple English Wikipedia article among the first 10-15 hits, there is a good chance the subject is not notable enough. Best regards. --Eptalon (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

removing article[change source]

With the change in the Wizard on regular Wikipedia I mistakenly placed my article St. Aloysius Institute of Education in Simple English. It doesn't belong here. How can it be removed? Jzsj (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If you haven't already posted it on the English Wikipedia, simply copy the code from the article, and start a new article at the English Wikipedia, pasting in the code. You can then mark the article here for Quick Deletion under category G7 (Author requests deletion). DaneGeld (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have already posted it in English Wikipedia. Must I delete both (together) and recreate it on English Wikipedia? Jzsj (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I placed the deletion notice on the page, mentioning the other article. I take it I may have to recreate the other article. Thanks for the help. Jzsj (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Article deleted per request.--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move: Chris Brown (entertainer)[change source]

NO ACTION:

Thanks all, In regards to being BOLD I shall do just that infuture however I will say that in terms of doing things around here I'm still new to it and not everything is the same as with EN, Anyway thanks all. –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Apologies if I'm doing this wrong but not really sure how to do it,
Anyway should Chris Brown (entertainer) be moved to Chris Brown and then the disambiguation (Chris Brown) be moved to Chris Brown (disambiguation)?,
The musician is currently PRIMARYTOPIC at EN and as most links at the disambiguation (other than his album) are all redlinked IMHO it would make sense to move,
I originally asked Auntof6 and they redirected me here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. –Davey2010Talk 20:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The subject is also the primary topic (it seems) on other languages. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 21:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not just do it if it seems that it makes sense. Is that new that we vote on moves nowadays? -Barras talk 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Because essays, guidelines etc all vary on different projects and I didn't want to be BOLD incase I was missing something (and in all fairness as I said above I was advised by an admin to come here - Had the admin agreed with me then I obviously would've moved). –Davey2010Talk 22:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't envision a vote, just a discussion to see if anyone had concerns. The subject of what constitutes a primary topic can be contentious.. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

See en:WP:BRD. Same applies here. :) Either way its moved now, if you object then revert me and continue discussing but I don't see this as controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Wikipedia:Quick deletion[change source]

Now you can even quicker request QD! Wielbiciel Papieża (talk)

That's not necessary for this project. Please seek consensus before attempting significant changes to our structures before implementing them. Only (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Renaming a page[change source]

I can't find the "Move" command to re-name a page. I just created a page (Eppelsheim) but only after I had checked it and publish it did I notice that I had accidentally given it the title Epplesheim -- that is, that I had transposed the E and L. Could someone please move this page to Eppelsheim? thank You. Kdammers (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I'm not sure why you're not seeing a "move" tab; it should be up top next to "history." You're an autoconfirmed user so that should be available to you. Only (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kdammers: It depends on the skin you use. With some skins, the move option is in the "More" dropdown at the top of the page. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kdammers: You can also press Alt+Shift+M. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion[change source]

Hi I have been away for a while and found out about this deletion: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Ananta Bijoy Das. I have made some comments there. —Neotarf (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Neotarf: I have removed the comments you made there. If you would like the article restored, you can use WP:Deletion review, or create the article in a way that shows notability. Also, keep in mind that the deletion was only because the article didn't show notability, not because the subject isn't notable at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem. —Neotarf (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Category Redirect pages appearing perpetually on Special:UnconnectedPages[change source]

I've undertaken the Wikignomework of Pages not connected to [Wikidata] items appearing among the WP:Special pages. Upon sorting by Category - many categories are Redirects, largely due to naming conventions. As they have zero chance of connection to a Wikidata item, they're simply clogging the page and misrepresenting what actually remains to be done. Is it possible for the bot (or ?) maintaining this page to skip pages designated as Category Redirects, or is there already an alternative page display I need to engage? -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That is an automatic listing so as far as I know there is no way to do that. Likely what would need to be done is have a bot scan that listing and remove the categories and redirects and generate a separate page but I don't see that as super likely to happen unless someone at en has already done that for their version of that page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Deborahjay: Thanks for working on that -- I like to work on those, too. As far as I know, the creation of that list (as well as most or all of what shows up under special pages) is not controlled at the individual wiki level: it's run the same for all Wikipedias. I think I opened a ticket along these lines, but right now I'm not on the computer where I could search for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Whatever generates the list can perhaps be modified, as it's true for all Wikipedias (unless there's something I don't understand). The simplewiki is glutted with hundreds of near-miss Category names: all the "athletes" > sportspeople, the "films" > movies, the "populated places" > settlements, so the list I linked above is hard going for maintainers, besides giving wildly inaccurate figures. @Auntof6:, I'm curious to know how that ticket (?) gets handled. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The settlement and athlete ones are left from when we standardized the names of categories here. The athlete ones were renamed because "athlete" doesn't mean the same as "sportsperson" everywhere, both because an athlete is a participant and coaches, managers, etc. are considered sportspeople, and because to much of the world "athlete" specifically means track and field participant, not sportsperson in general. I suppose we could delete those redirects; we didn't do that before because having them as redirects keeps them from being created incorrectly. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)