Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Editor review)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposal: Change the languages on the Log in page[change source]

Hi All,

The Log in page currently has these multilingual options: Deutsch | English | Esperanto | français | español | italiano | Nederlands

I know that a Log in page is fairly self-explanatory, but shouldn't we be a bit more welcoming to more people from very common languages and get away from such a Eurocentric presentation?

Suggest Language: Arabic (Standard) | Chinese (Mandarin) | English | español | | français | Hindi | Indonesian | Swahili as a limited set that covers many people and places. Possible? --Gotanda (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Support the idea overall. It is certainly not right that we have Esperanto, a constructed langauge that virtually nobody speaks natively, with no languages that are non-european. Chinese is the world's most spoken langauge, and we don't offer that option? Most of the existing langauges are very similar to each other as well. Support change, yes. --IWI (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah I have no problem with that. I didn't even notice we had those options to be honest. The one offers no options. I don't know what they are without looking but I am pretty sure there is a stats page that shows where most of the hits to simple come from. I would take whatever the top 5 or so non-English countries our hits come from and use the predominant languages in those countries. That way whatever we use is related to what most of our traffic comes from, rather than just what we pull out of thin air. -Djsasso (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I didn't just "pull those suggestions out of thin air." I consulted List of languages by total number of speakers and made a judgment call not to include so many European languages; add Indonesian as mutually intelligible with Malaysian for this purpose; and, Swahili as the common non-colonial sub-Saharan African lingua franca. That way we get pretty good global coverage.--Gotanda (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, the judgement call is the part I am suggesting we avoid because everyone's judgement and idea of global will be different. The suggestion is we use the languages of the people we already know are coming here which is evidence based. -Djsasso (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • But that just creates a feedback loop where the people who already use the site are addressed. Making the site more welcoming to a greater variety of visitors implies going beyond the current user base. Expanding our reach is desirable for Simple and consistent with Wikipedia Foundation strategies, especially in the global south. --Gotanda (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, the Simple English Wikipedia should be accessible to everyone, not just those that are already coming here. We should have, as Gotanda suggested, numerous localised "ligua franca"s to be represented. English is just one of those. --IWI (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this idea. It would mean that people from more common languages would be able to access Simple Wiki. After all, this Wiki is for people learning English so I think the login page should be for as many people as possible. I agree with IWI, we definitely don't need Esperanto. Belwine💬📜 12:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should also consider adding Russian. It has more speakers than Indonesian, and over twice as many speakers as Swahili, and few of them speak other languages.Naddruf (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support-per above. I think it will be better for other language users to understand well on choosing their language.KP (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as many foreign users would find this helpful. CadCossie (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Car vs automobile[change source]

Hello everyone. After this discussion, I have decided to ask the community on their thoughts on this matter. The issue is whether the word "car" or "automobile" is more simple. The WP:BE1500 lists "automobile" but not "car", but I believe this is outdated. It lists "automobile" because some European langauges use a similar word, but in reality, car is a word that is more likely to be taught to students of English; and is much more commonly used in daily conversation, at least in British English. This also is a problem for students who speak non-european langauge where their word for car may look nothing like automobile. Of course, we usually follow the BE1500, but I believe in this case it can probably be ignored. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

As I mention on my talk page. We need to be very careful about where we use IAR. The number one complaint against our wiki is that we randomly decide what is simple and what is not. What has routinely saved us is our the fact that we can point to adhering to the Basic English word lists as an authoritative source as to what is simple. The minute we start ignoring what is a key factor that allows us to have a wiki is the minute all those detractors can point and say "they aren't following the lists anymore so they are no more different than, its time to shut them down." -Djsasso (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally agree with Djsasso. Context is also very important here, and using an officially listed word like automobile provides that context and removes the disambiguation. For example, our article train begins with the opening line "A train is a set of cars on a railway." If I'm to understand that a car is an automobile, that becomes a very confusing first sentence. However on the other hand if we're talking about my favourite subject auto racing, it may be wise to use the word car to bridge the gap to the word racecar. So in general, we just need to be smart about it, and use the term that has been decided on as the simple English term in most cases.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In that particular case, "car" is being used as a short form of "carriage". In my view, this is confusing and should not be done. --IWI (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A drawn car, design is from 4.000 yers ago
  • Car probably has the same roots as German-language Karren, goin back to Latin carrus. Originally this was a drawn vehicle with one axis. Automobile refers to the fact that the thing is 'self-moving'. When I learnt English, I learnt 'car' in this respect, but aurtomobile is omnipresent. But as pointed out: A railroad vehicle (usually a passenger carriage) is also a car. Likely, this is the resons, why automobile is on the list, but car isn't. --Eptalon (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Tending to agree with the clearly developed consensus here. --IWI (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (A bit off-topic). Djasso, what is IAR? Please, people, abbreviations like this, so popular on Wikipedia pages, are definitely not on the BE (Basic English) list. Please explain them when you first use them. Kdammers (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • IAR was linked to in the comment prior to mine which is why I used it. -Djsasso (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I see the problem. IWI did indeed link to IAR before Djsasso replied, but they linked it to the word "ignore," so it wasn't obvious what it was. Kdammers, "IAR" Is usually "ignore all rules." It's a Wikipedia principle that means more or less "Break the rules if there is a good reason to break them."
I found myself thinking what Gordon thought: "Car" can also mean train car. Automobile doesn't. It's tempting to think the shorter word is simpler, but what we really want to do is write for our audience: Kids and ESL readers. I would agree with switching to "car" if there were some reliable proof that it is more readily understood than "automobile" by our audience, but I don't see why any would exist. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Per the above, I have moved car to automobile and changed "car" to "automobile" where appropriate. I suggest instances of "car" should be changed to "automobile" on sight where it makes sense to do so. --IWI (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no-one uses the word 'automobile' in Britain. Whatever its origin, 'car' is the word we all use, and that includes notable sources like The Times and the BBC. Basic English list was done a century ago, and there are many examples of its being out of date. Do you really think kids use words like "automobile"?! You have all made a very bad decision. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that nobody uses the word automobile here, like at all. Nevertheless, the word "car" has several meanings whereas the word automobile has one. I very much share your view, but I understand why the BE lists automobile. --IWI (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In British English, a train does not consist of cars, it consists of carriages. So our use is consistent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC) And what's more, it is allowed to write in British English, and deprecated to change pages from one spelling system to another. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank You[change source]

Thank you, but, check this! Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross Yea, I always found English hard TBH. In class in reading comprehension tests I always take the longest (~3 hours). Thanks for the note! --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed on uncategorized pages[change source]

There are over 250 pages currently listed at Special:UncategorizedPages. Anyone who feels confident in their categorizing skills might want to help clear them. It would be appreciated if you fully categorize a page, rather than putting it in only one category just to get it out of the list. If you'd like input on how to do that, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

On it. --IWI (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
And what's this "hotcat" that I keep hearing about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: It's a gadget you will find in My Settings > Gadgets that makes adding categories to pages easier. --IWI (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Yes, much easier. I highly recommend it. It lets you add/change/remove categories right in the area where the categories are shown on a page. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Yeah, I don't think I could edit without it, ha. --IWI (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Just be careful to check before you save. HotCat uses autocomplete, so you could end up with a different category than you intended. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed some persnickitiness. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I will say Tableau vivant is a bit of a stumper. So far I put "photography" and "performing arts" but it does seem pretty unique.
Articles whose categories could be discussed:
- Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, cut 'em in half! Great job everyone! Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I realised Hot Cat, had nothing to do with cute cats, after finding out it was a gadget! I will try and help categorize these pages, with Hot Cat of course! --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
HUZZAH! And if you want cute cats, there is always YouTube. I also recommend "Koala fights." Remember to put the sound on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm stumped on Knick knack. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Introducing Wikiproject Article for Creation[change source]

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.

Outcome: Proposal rejected . No active users available to take interest in it and for technical reasons because it is small wiki.KP (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Proposal- We should bring a new system, called article for creation system as we have in English Wikipedia. Why, we should do this, see if an IP user has created an article which is against rules of Wikipedia policy, but we don't when it has created, or we did speedly deletion on that article but user wants more time, to accomodate this I want to propose this system. You can get at [1]. Comments? this system will be for non-confirmed or IP users. Please ping me when any discussion is needed. KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Support[change source]

Oppose[change source]

  • Weak oppose While I think this could be helpful for stopping vandalism, we do have a great QD system here where articles get deleted quickly if they are identified as complete vandalism or test pages. These articles seem to get identified pretty quickly (usually less than 12hrs after article creation).
    However, there are articles that unregistered/non-confirmed users make here that are genuinely ok.
    There are only 50-60 articles per day (including redirects) made here, which is quite a manageable number, but 50 articles (including redirects) were made on the English Wikipedia in the last hour or so.
    Therefore, I don't think there would be a need for this system here right now. Belwine💬📜 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We simply do not have enough active users to manage such a system. --IWI (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I accept that. I don't how much active users we have now.KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe we have 30-40 active users? I was doing some talk page stalking the other day and I saw something saying that... Someone can fact-check me... Belwine💬📜 13:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose With the majority of our page creators are IP, the workload cannot be imagined. We also have some logged in editors who uses bots (unauthorized) to run pages as IPs. Workload is clearly way too much. In addition, if I recall correctly, AFC systems in different Wikipedias are first implemented to allow projects to remove IP creating pages (like as a compromise solution to the foundation - like a deal with them). Per IWI, we truly don't have enough people here to handle. Suggestion: What we can do however is to have a link to here / set up a help desk for newbies to ask questions, or I will rather when we patrol pages, do tell the creator how to improve etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You are correct.KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral[change source]

Discussions/Question[change source]

  • May be a very nice system that works well for EnWp. This wiki is a lot smaller. Many users which are new or are unregistered also contribute here. Yes, while there's some vandalism/graffitti from these users, I don't think it is enough to warrant the overhead this system brings. I also want to note that many of the new or unregistered users do good contributions. To me, this is a lot of overhead, with little to no benefit.--Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • TTP1233, you've been editing here only a couple of weeks. That may not be enough time to understand how Simple English Wikipedia is different from other Wikipedias. As Eptalon said, this wiki is much smaller. We don't have as much infrastructure here, and that's partly on purpose, to keep things simple and to prevent overworking our smaller group of editors.
    You proposed this as a WikiProject. Here WikiProjects are hosted in userspace and are unofficial. Consequently, they have no authority over processes or anything else. If you'd like to know more about how SEW is different, you can see this list I put together. It's not a policy or guideline, just a list that some people have found helpful. Feel free to ask (on my talk page) any questions you have about anything on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand that.KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (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_talk:Deletion_policy#Proposal_to_add_T3[change source]

I had started a discussion of a possible new RFD criterion above, hope there will be some comments. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

About a section in front page[change source]

Hello, as we use pages here rather than articles, can someone tell me why in the front page we still put "Selected article", is there any reason I don't know. If not can we just use "Selected page"? Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We use both terms here. An article is only one type of page. For the "selected article" it's always an article, so the term is appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh I see, but why the section headings in articles we put related pages in lieu of see also but we don't use related article. I am trying to understand the consistency here. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Because the same heading is used in articles and non-articles for consistency. So when you see "Related pages" on template documentation for example they are not articles. Page=Any namespace. Article=mainspace. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, thanks for explanation @Djsasso Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Liberia#Sources_and_POV_statements[change source]

Do note that there is a discussion taking place here, we need to ascertain the neutrality of the article. @Eptalon: tried to make it more neutral but there are some editors who doesn't agree and further reverted. Pinging also @Macdonald-ross: too. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-02[change source]

15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed_article_demotion#Muhammad[change source]

Notifying the community on behalf of nominator, there is a propose GA demotion that is discussed here, this is to follow #4 in the instructions. All community members is welcomed to comment on the nomination. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Merging two image guides[change source]

Is anybody opposed to merging Help:Images and Help:How to use images? Naddruf (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Merged into Help:Images. Naddruf (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

British English or American English[change source]

  • So what are we supposed to use? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @つがる: This question is answered at WP:ENGVAR. Basically, if the article is connected to an English-speaking country, it should use the vocabulary, spelling, and grammar from that country. Otherwise, it can use either type of English, but it should use the same type throughout the article. If the article has already been written with one type of English, then it should keep that type of English. Naddruf (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, generally speaking, articles about American things should use American English, and the same for British things, Australian things, Canadian things etc. All types of English are acceptable. --IWI (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
And if the article isn't connected to England or America, then the first contributor gets to pick whatever they happen to prefer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If there is no type of English connected to the topic then yes. Though there are many types of English aside from US and GB, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, India, Singapore, South Africa, etc. --IWI (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to say so: This wiki is also for people learning English. So: use whatever you feel most comfortable with, and for that word stick to that spelling in the article. As pointed out: South Africa, Belize, Hong Kong, Liberia (...) all have English as a langugage that is commonly spoken, if not official. To say that aricles about Liberia should only use the Liberian variant of English, would probably be nit-picking...--Eptalon (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I will say that since this is Simple English, our mandate is to use Simple English. If any form of English meets Simple English requirements let's use it, if it doesn't don't use it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eptalon: Well, think about who is most likely to read Nigeria-related topics. Nigerians. And what type of English will they be learning? Nigerian English. --IWI (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This shows our audience, just some food for thought. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with Template:Uw-rfd (not urgent)[change source]

I noticed that this template had the year 2020 hardcoded in it for constructing the name of an RFD discussion page. I tried a couple of things to make the year variable, but they didn't do the trick. For now, I have hardcoded 2021 instead, but it would be better to have the year variable so that the template always inserts the current year. Could someone who understands that coding better than I do take a look and fix it? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't working? The current version uses {{CURRENTYEAR}}, and it appears to be working on the test page: Template:Uw-rfd/testcases. Naddruf (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The addition of {{CURRENTYEAR}} seems to have done it, I also separately added safesubst so that the year is dependent on when the template was substituted onto the page, rather than the year when the template message is viewed. Chenzw  Talk  04:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems like you changed {{CURRENTYEAR}} into 2021, am I wrong? Naddruf (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, fixed for sure now. Chenzw  Talk  04:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Chenzw, I think the safesubst might have done it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Naddruf: The way I left it, it would work for this year, but not for future years without further changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Active user[change source]

I need to know how many active users are there. Give me a list for my contact to them as well.KP (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@TTP1233: For what reason do you need to contact active users? --IWI (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment:, any help or patrolling or reporting cases may be. Just if needed i will contact to them as well. I know you, Belwine, Eptalon, 2 others. That's why I asked here.KP (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@TTP1233: Well we have Special:ActiveUsers, but that lists a lot of users. You can narrow it down by displaying only admins, patrollers, and rollbackers like this. --IWI (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Yikes, I've been more active than I thought... Belwine💬📜 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
We have less than 30 active users (actually active, not 1 edit in 30 days active the above list uses). But generally you don't need to contact "active users". If its vandalism, put it on WP:VIP. If its a general question you have put it on this page. -Djsasso (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

20 years of Wikipedia[change source]

A interesting accomplishment...Derpdart56 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we do something to celebrate, like a logo / a banner on front page. Major wikis like en/zh have them. I don't mean the central notice but a dedicated message? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I know that this wiki was founded somewhere around September 2001, so something to consider for later this year indeed. --IWI (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I will say Sept isn't the best, it's 20 years after 911 attacks, I would rather do it on like Aug with Sep left to remember the tragedy.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that is when this wiki was founded - Sept 2001. I have to find the diff, but former admin Angela gave exact dates. --IWI (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It was created on November 17, 2001 as per Simple Wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Just a concern about the sensitivity, like if the date was very close, it might leave a bad taste in readers like we are celebrating in the midst of a remembrance. I am just a little worried about how the perception will be. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Then Nov will be perfectly fine :D Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 (change conflict) @Djsasso: But that can't be, per what Angela provides here. She states 18 September 2001. --IWI (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Could be vandalism then. -Djsasso (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
So let's start on 18 Sep, 1 week from 11 should be sensitive enough. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Right when we think we have this nailed down... Along came a spider. I was thinking to myself: the earliest date of a SEWP article certainly would be saved in the database when they migrated everything, right? So I went over to quarry and ran me a little SQL query. Shockingly enough, Swedish Academy's earliest edit is May 18, 2001. Djsasso have any thoughts here? Would this potentially change the "born on" date? Operator873talkconnect 06:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is because the article was imported from the English Wikipedia. Therefore, both English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia have the same creation date. Saroj Uprety (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah article edit dates are unreliable because of importing. -Djsasso (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, imported dates aren't reliable, they will use the date for the version in English as the date. So it's still 18 Sep. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

+supressredirect for rollbackers[change source]

Hello, I am seeing more page move vandalism, including a bout this morning, it will be easier for the cleanup if rollbackers can supress redirect (i.e. a vandal move page A to nonsense page name B, he/she can revert and then without leaving the redirect from page B to page A). This will aid in clean-up, I know is currently a sysop level access, so there might be some arguments that why not flag down any sysop or GR (who by global rights policy, can use), but I think if we can trust them with rollback, we can with this and if anyone misuse, it can be easily removed and the redirect can be reinstated without much trouble. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just tag the redirect with a QD. There was a discussion on this a couple months back and consensus was that non-admins shouldn't have it. -Djsasso (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I must have missed that, thanks @Djsasso for pointing it out. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Was discussed very recently, as Djsasso states; I don't imagine this is likely to change. The idea was that if you're experienced enough to be trusted with supressredirect, then you are experienced enough to be trusted with other admin tools, at least on this wiki. --IWI (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
see the discussion, which happened in July 2020; actual vote ishere--Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I agree to the points stated in the discussion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-03[change source]

16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration on Simple Wikipedia[change source]

Recently, this wiki has expanded largely over the last year, with more users, pages, and projects. Therefore, I am proposing an Arbitration system, like other major WMF wikis, mainly the English Wikipedia. There have been several examples on small wikis of why we need an arbitration system, although none on simplewiki yet. I am proposing either a 5 member Arbitration Committee, or an administrative panel (see below for differences), to solve disputes, to decide arguments on project creation, basically, anything that is a major issue on the Simple Wikipedia that cannot be solved by admins, or regular users. They will be the last resort, if unblock requests have been declined, or if a permanent ban on the user is requested.

These are just some of the issues an ArbCom or an administrative panel (name pending), and see my userpage here on Simple Wikipedia if you have private questions/comments. Thank you, and I hope you consider this request. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


  1. This proposal may be closed by an ideally uninvolved Wikipedia bureaucrat.
  2. Please remember all votes should express an argument with them, including, but not limited to, referring to the argument(s) expressed in the proposal(s) or which which have been made by other users.
  3. Proposals 1 and 2 may pass together, but this is not required.
  4. Proposal 2 is a measure to be passed only until this wiki gains editors.

Proposal 1: Create an Arbitration Committee[change source]

Rationale: An ArbCom can oversee any disputes about blocks/bans on-wiki, major project creations, and other large-scale disputes, conflicts, and more.

Support[change source]

  1. Strong support Per proposal. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose[change source]

  1. Oppose - Proposal 1, Arbcom commitee, is not needed as we don't usually have issues so severe. Bans are usually discussed here, and other discussions involving blocks are here and on WP:AN. I think making an ArbCom would be a lot of hassle for something that wouldn't be used very often. Belwine💬📜 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sorry, but I don't see a need for this. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose we simply do not need an arbcomm, given that we have roughly 30 active editors per month. Disputes can easily be resolved by the community. --IWI (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oppose without prejudice. If conditions on the Simple English Wikipedia change such that there are problems that an ArbCom could solve, we can always make one then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. This wiki is nowhere near large enough compared to other wikis with an Arbitration Committee. In addition, this seems like a solution looking for a problem. I don't see anything here that an Arbitration Committee would solve, just "we should have one". Naleksuh (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not needed. Operator873talkconnect 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Oppose --Saroj Uprety (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Uninvolved crats would serve as this function if needed. We are way too small for one. -Djsasso (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions/Comments[change source]

  • The English Wikipedia is a very large wiki. There are many editors, and conflicts are frequent. We are a small wiki, there are few active editors. I'ds guess about a third of the active edtors are admins, including Crats, Checkusers, and Oversighters (yes, one of the differences of this wiki: CU/OS/Crat require adminship). Open conflicts are almost non-existent; appeals to blocks are handled as an onwiki request, or a mail to an admin mailing list. Sorry to say so: The system we currently have works well, and in my opinion we do not need to burden ourself with a set of rules, for an additional system. If there really is an issue finding an uninvolved admin or crat is easy. So suppose we go for the solution of defining an arbcom, what's the benefit?- I see a big increase iun complexity/new procedures/rules, but I don't see a benefit that would make this extra complexity worthwile. --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Please remove the 'neutral/abstain' section. We don't have neutral votes. You are either in favor of something, or you are against it, or you are commenting on it. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Create an administrative panel[change source]

Rationale: Administrators and bureaucrats have the community's trust, and can maintain issues without outside help.

Support[change source]

Oppose[change source]

  1. Oppose - We don't need this system, we already have admins who we can speak to if we need assistance. Belwine💬📜 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - it's unclear what this actually would be, therefore I wouldn't even know what I am supporting and am opposing procedurally. It sounds like a different name for "arbcomm" from what I gather. In any case, the status quo works fine. --IWI (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per my statement below --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Arbitrators should be elected, not appointed. In addition arbitration of any type here is completely unnecessary. Naleksuh (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not needed. Operator873talkconnect 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not needed. Admins already talk to each other to discuss issues as needed. -Djsasso (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Oppose without prejudice. No one has pointed to a problem that this measure would solve. If that changes, we can always revisit this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions/Comments[change source]

  •  Comment You say "There have been several examples on small wikis of why we need an arbitration system." What are they? I spent four years on another small Wiki, the English Wikinews, and its arb system didn't do much. I can't say it hurt anything, but it didn't seem to help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Darkfrog24: English Wikibooks is a good example. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
...and what happened? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment What do you mean by "Administrative Panel" I don't understand what you are saying --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, I was a little confused too. I think BlackWidowMovie means a selected panel of admins. However, all the admins and bureaucrats (and checkusers and oversighters) do have the community's trust, they got voted in by the community... Belwine💬📜 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    @つがる, Belwine: A selected panel of 5 admins, extremely experienced, dedicated to arbitrating this wiki like I said above. Admins will not be elected by the community, but rather chose internally. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    I think that all admins here are extremely experienced. Quite a lot of them have been here for a long time (e.g. Auntof6, Chenzw, Djsasso, Eptalon, Macdonald-ross, Peterdownunder - these are all admins that have been here for 8-12 years now and have a lot of experience here! That is just to name a few...) and communicate with each other. I don't see need for a new system, this one is working fine... Belwine💬📜 22:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but this plan doesn't sound good. Without community consensus, this won't be fair. If users have concerns about admins/crats, then how will they be voiced out? I don't want to sound like I'm trying to cause havoc to your plans, nor am I trying to be aggressive in response to your plans. Thanks. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I can only re-iterate: Adminship here means the trust of the community; without the community trusting you, you won't become admin. Given that we are probably the Wiki with the highest admin ratio, finding an uninvolved admin is pretty easy. Note also, that the other functions we have (bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter) require adminship. Given what you ask, this role would probably be the 'advanced flags' mentioned before. Let me spell this out for you: This wiki is controversial, there have been three attempts at closing it (3 (2018), 2 (2008/2009), 1 (2007)). In the last proposal, 35 people were in favor of closure, 90 were opposed to it. One of the 'selling points' of this wiki is that we try to avoid over-regulation. Each rule/procedure adds complexity; if there's no large payoff, adding the rule/procedure usually has no benefit. So please take the time to familarize yourself with this wiki and its values,try adding or improving content. When we need a new system to handle disagreements between editors, we will add it. At the moment, I think we don't.--Eptalon (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Please remove the 'neutral/abstain' section. We don't have neutral votes. You are either in favor of something, or you are against it, or you are commenting on it. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is not the English Wikipedia. This project does not even strive to become like the English Wikipedia. BlackWidowMovie0 arrived on this project 8 days ago and is still in the process of understanding the differences between the two projects. I strongly suggest they become a member of this community and understand the differences here before they begin trying to change it. Operator873talkconnect 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Operator873: Fair enough, but there's no need to be rude. After discussion with another sysop, I will be advised by users before each and every edit on articles, until I am understanding enough of this project to contribute without advisement. Consider both proposals withdrawn. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    I apologize you feel the response was rude as it was not intended to be. My intent was to state that if you had invested some time to learn this community, you would have known why this wasn't needed. Operator873talkconnect 00:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    @BlackWidowMovie0: That doesn't seem necessary to seek consultation before each and every edit, and if that really is what is required then WP:CIR applies unfortunately. --IWI (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ImprovedWikiImprovement: Not what I meant. What I meant was that I will seek consultation for potentially controversial edits. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)