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

• I think we should give him a single chance to show that he has (as stated in his unblock email). It should be a block with mega restrictions (i.e.: any edit that looks like a vandalism edit, any sockpuppetry, and any break of any rules would result in in instant indef block. It is possible for people to change and I for one would like to see if he has. fr33kman 02:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I'm up for giving him a chance. One strike rule will do. Can we put a time-limit on the restrictions, (say 6 months or a year), or say indefinite and we can review them at a later date? (Restriction timeline is, of course, assuming he does get unblocked.)--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Agreed with Fr33k and Gordon. I'm up for giving him a chance per the restrictions outlined above. I'd rather see any restrictions placed indefinitely with an option for review at a later date, rather than putting an expiry on them per se. AGF as always, but I'd be more comfortable with the thought that they could be removed/relaxed, not that they will. Ta! Goblin 09:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

• Sorry, but I think I'm the first one here now not willing to give you a second (yet). You've perfectly well proven that you actually are a vandal with a long history. I absolutely don't trust you here nor elsewhere. Looking at your sul clearly shows that you are not welcomed on different wikis. The simple English Wikipedia is not a harbour for people being banned elsewhere. You evaded your block here by editing with your IP. I don't want former vandals (still likely to be one) to edit here. It's at one point that I don't trust you to go rouge again and at a second point, that we [Simple English Wikipedia] currently don't have much respect from other WMF wikis, because of such things (Harbour for banned people, etc.). At some point it is always enough. Sorry, but a very clear no to the unban request. -Barras (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I will state my position that I have also expressed on the admin mailing list: The block was enacted end of February 2009, about two years have passed since then. Samlaptop has grown older, and had a chance to think about what he had done, since then. I am therefore prepred to give him a chance to show that he is able to edit constructively here. With the carrot comes the stick, though: In case that vandalism (or any other clearly bad behaviour, such as edit warring) should be attributable to his username, he should be re-blocked/banned fairly quickly. If he manages to behave as expected, for a longer period, say six months, we should drop the restrictions, and treat him as a full member of the community. --Eptalon (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Barras pretty much summed it up for me. I would rather he not be unbanned. I am completely against it. But if you guys do give in then it should be an immediate no warning indefinate ban with no expiry date on the ability to immediately ban. Not willing to damage the little respect we are finally managing to build by being hard on sock puppeteers and vandals just to assume some good faith for someone who hasn't done anything to earn the assumption of good faith. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with DJSasso's fourth sentence. If the consensus is to unblock him, it's a one-chance-only reprieve. Any silliness, reblocked indefinitely and we go about our business. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, no. I feel that a user who has repeatedly been community-banned on not just one, but many other WMF project is not deserving of an unban. The ban should stay.-- Tdxiang 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hrm. I think he should be let go (AGF etc.) because what would the damage be? We could always reblock him if he misbehaves. The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm in favor of the three-strikes law. The first two, you get a slap on the wrist; the third strike, you're out. —stay (sic)! 19:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to be unbaned from Simple Wikipedia because if I been making constructive edits on this site, I'll be able to say to the admins at en.wikipedia that I am no longer a missbehaving user and I have been on a forum for 2 years and never got banned from that forum.--Sam (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't exist to be used to get unblocked at en.wikipedia. You used your 1 chance to be able to do that already. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. The only reason why I weas blocked on Wikipedia is because it was my first time and I didn't know about the blocking and all of that. Now I know, I'm happy for a third and final chance! Also, I didn't know they could ban people on forums but now I do, I'm always sensible on that forum.--Sam (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your first comment here makes me even more sure that you should not be unbanned. You want to use this wiki do show that you are good and to get unbanned from enwiki. That's exactly for what this wiki was not made. We are not a harbour for banned people from other sites. -Barras (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The comment kinda changes my mind. If we are going to unban you, I don't want it to be so you can use us as a stepping stone for en. I want it to be because you seriously want to help THIS wiki, not because you only want to get back on en. My mind has changed. I agree with Barras, I think you still need more time.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never been in support of unbanning this user and my opinion remains unaltered. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But if I can make useful edits here are simple.wikipedia, then the admins over en.wikipedia may wish to unblock me there and then if I keep making useful edits, they won't mind me editing Wikipedia. It's been 2 years since I was banned and I myself will be sensible for the whole 6 months.--Sam (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You say you will be sensitive for 6 months. And what happens then? Going rouge and vandalizing again? At least it sounds like "I will behave the first six months..." and then? No, sorry. Makes me another time even more sure that we shouldn't unban you. -Barras (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*If I'm not mistaken, I vaguely recall a similar event like this which has happened before. Some user known for vandalizing and disruption, was unblocked after given another second chance by the community, but with heavy restrictions towards certain behavior. Later he simply disappeared, since that person is no longer active here. I don't know if the same will apply here. —stay (sic)! 07:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• After the next 6 months, I won't vandalise because the administrator who unblocked me in the first place said "One strike of vandalism then your out." So I know the rule and I'll follow it 100%. I don't want to be banned or blocked ever again.--Sam (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck my original comment and would now be opposed to any unbanning of this user. Why? Well, the comments above. Also the fact that it seems to be certain (in the user's mind, at least) that all restrictions would be lifted automatically in 6 months. Sorry, there's AGF and there's being convinced that a user isn't good for the wiki - this is the latter. Goblin 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08![reply]

• I oppose unblocking this user; comments seem to indicate wanting to use this site simply to get unblocked at English. We already have a reputation for being a "Wikipedia rehab center" and I don't think it's a nearly sufficient rule; also, comments above don't convince me of real change. Kansan (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What Kansan said; he wants to be unblocked for completely wrong reasons. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Completely unsuitable for editing, he's still immature, not only has a long history of crosswiki vandalism, but is seeking an unban for totally wrong reasons. I don't want Simple Wikipedia to be a playground for crosswiki vandals/banned users; as Kansan said, we have a reputation, particularly among enwiki editors of being a rehab center, which we are not, and I don't want the unbanning of editors like Sam. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Having not been around when the original ban was placed, I was hesitant to voice my opinion; however, like Gordonrox24 I believe that Sam's further comments have illustrated a complete misunderstanding of what editing here is about. sonia♫ 08:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Fr33kman's proposal - Sam was given an indefinite ban; that does not mean for ever. After two years I am happy to give him another chance. If he causes any problems we simply (and quickly) ban him again for another couple of years. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• My wikiphilosophy, as everyone probably knows, inclines towards the idea that it's better to be too kind than to be too, well, unkind...but in this case, I don't think it's a good idea to unblock. I might be a little prejudiced against Sam because of a Youtube video I saw some time ago in which an IP vandal, allegedly "Samlaptop", videotaped himself snickering over warnings and generally treating the wiki as a contemptuous joke. Of course, this might not have been Sam at all (one can never be quite sure of offwiki things) but it does make me a little more cautious than I might have been. It's not just that, though. Barras makes some good ponts, and Sam's comments about wishing to show en that he can do good changes here also makes me think he doesn't really care that much about helping this Wikipedia for itself. Therefore, I think the community ban should stay in place. Cordially, —Clementina talk 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been watching this discussion with interest. I have an opinion on the matter, but I feel that I am probably too close to the issue to give it a fully neutral consideration. Although the direct claim has been tactfully avoided, I felt that I should anyway say something to salvage my reputation at simple.wikipedia which I feel may be suffering at this point.
  So just for the record,...
  I was not suggesting in my earlier post that Sam should use simple.wikipedia solely as a stepping stone toward an unbanning at en.wikipedia. Although I primarily edit at en.wikipedia, I nevertheless recognize and respect the aims of simple.wikipedia and I had no intention of dismissing it or treating it as a playground. I have interacted with Sam for over a year now and I know that it is his goal to edit en.wikipedia again at some point in the future. Although his continual dynamic-ip-based sockpuppetry there makes his unbanning unlikely in my opinion, I have repeatedly told him that if he can avoid breaking the rules and can instead demonstrate the ability to make a positive contribution to any similar project (my standard suggestion has been to improve his own wiki.), then he may be able to point to this as evidence that he could contribute positively at en.wikipedia if unbanned. Rather than suggesting that Sam should lie low at simple.wikipedia or that he should bide his time here until he can ditch simple.wikipedia and return to en.wikipedia, I was truly surprised by the decision to unblock. In trying to alert his attention to the fact that positive contributions to this wikipedia project could help him achieve other additional goals that I already knew he had, my intention was to provide additional incentive to behave and not to suggest that this should become his sole incentive. Whether this was in fact Sam's sole incentive is something you'll have to decide for yourself based on his behavior, but the record should be clear that I did not suggest that he do this in the first place. I merely hoped to help simple.wikipedia by providing an unbanned former vandal with as much reason to give up his past activities as I could. My prior post was made with the intention of helping simple.wikipedia and not with the intention of dismissing it. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, wait. I've been indeffed on the main Wikipedia, and since I used Wikipedia alot, I didn't feel like giving it up. So, I saw some comments on my main talk page (You'll see them in my history, on en) and took some advice. I ORIGINALLY wanted it as a "Stepping stone" but now...not so much. I like to help, even people with brain problems. I have brain problems myself. ADHD and ODD. Plus I live next door to a kid with autism. So I know how it is. I've been here, actively, since November, with a single block. So I have a better record here than I do over at the main en. I was there for two months then I got indeffed. Plus I started up WikiProject Warriors! So I'm doing really well here. I'm helping out. He's been blocked for two years. Yes, I lean towards unblocking him, but with one of us watching him as much as possible. I mean, like keeping his contributions up on one tab, and doing our own thing in another, sometimes checking and reloading his contributions. I'll check his own wiki, anon, and will watch it carefully. Loudclaw (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the comments of Fr33man and Peterdownunder. wiooiw (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the rules, so here. I'll give you the links so that you know the rules and you will not be in trouble for breaking them because you don't know the rules. Besides, here's a good incentive. "I want to help people across the world so that they can know more about what's happening, and so that they can learn." That's MY incentive. Loudclaw (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, the link to all the basic rules in Simple Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Rules Loudclaw (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, generally, not repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia using different accounts is common sense. Kansan (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My 2.64p's worth

I guess some people may realize, but I do tend to do the odd weird thing like supporting a known vandal and serial socker for unban, however I believe in chances. If Sam is unblocked and starts up with his old habits (or new ones for that matter) then he'll be insta-blocked on sight. The RC patrol will be watching him like a hawk. Therefore, do we really think there is much danger here; a block would take about 59 seconds? ;) As for his stating that he's here to enable an unblock enwiki, I'm gonna be frank here and say that quite a few of our editors and admins came here for that same reason, so please let those people not use that argument in their decision here. Perhaps in the mean time he can give some good edits (we need editors) and even if enwiki says bugger off, we may gain a descent editor??? Remember, quite a few of our community were vandals and/or sockers. (some whom you'd be shocked at) fr33kman 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why hello! Did somebody call me? The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 07:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To your comment about thats where alot of our editors came from, well thats the point. We need to stop editors from coming here for that reason. Most of the people who came here for that reason are gone. Not all, but most. And I think this wiki has suffered greatly for it being treated like a stepping stone. Frankly giving someone a third chance doesn't outweigh the continual harm this wiki receives by allowing such editors so much leeway. For every one editor like that that stays they probably keep 5 better editors away. Some turn out good, of course they do. But how many other good editors did we lose because we wanted to "fix" one editor. As for giving chances, he had a chance....that is what he was on when he was blocked the first time. He used the chance. This wouldn't be a second chance, this would be a third chance or higher since I forget if we blocked him prior to banning. The harm isn't in any action he could take, the harm is in him just being here period. He had his second chance and he used it, that is why we have the one chance policy. So we don't have to keep going through discussions like this. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this unblock. The way Samlaptop is trying to use here as a "stepping-stone" makes me feel some disapproval, but if he is sincerely sorry perhaps it is right for us to unblock him. However, it does concern me about the enwiki looking down on us as a playground for vandals and being too soft. I think we should wait a little more before we think about unblocking Sam. ♥ingly, Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 13:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what made me come here. The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 16:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear I know excatly what I'm doing and I know that vandalism is not allowed on both wikipedias andI know that if I vandalise again, I'll be banned forever. I am willing to take my final chance on both wikipedias.--Sam (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when will the final decission be made?--Sam (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be a while, based on what I've just read. I'm sorry, but if that's what the senior editors want, then I can't do anything about it. I have only been here for 3 months. Loudclaw (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam, please be patient. It's not been 3 days yet. I'm assuming this discussion will be closed within a week. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Samlaptop85213 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

After reading all theese comments, I am willing to take my final chance here at Simple Wikipedia. I promise that I'll edit constructivley and I know that if I do vandalise a page, I'll be out for good. I hope to be back on Simple Wikipedia soon.

Decline reason:

Based on the above discussion there is clearly no consensus to unblock at the moment. -- DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. Berty/Unblock disclaimer The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 16:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The community discussion has been running for almost ten days, and I think it is time to close it. Many of the active members of the community have participated in the discussion within this time. Certain users have opposed the unblock on the basis of Sam's comment: "But if I can make useful edits here are simple.wikipedia, then the admins over en.wikipedia may wish to unblock me there and then if I keep making useful edits, they won't mind me editing Wikipedia. It's been 2 years since I was banned and I myself will be sensible for the whole 6 months," or because of the fact that he is a "vandal with a long history" and that, in their opinion, Simple English Wikipedia had a reputation for being a "rehab center" which the Wikipedia is not. Others have assumed good fatih and supported an unblock as Sam had been blocked two years back, and has, according to them, learned from his mistakes. If I go by figures, ~9/10 editors are in opposition of an unban and 4/5 supporting an unblock. However, in my opinion, the comments of the editors are more significant, but even from the comments, I see no consensus to remove the ban, for the reasons for opposing and the number of people opposing are both more in number. The opposes outweigh the supports from what I can see, and the community has not been able to reach consensus on an unban, as while some editors are willing to give him a chance because he has changed, others believe he has not; even some of those who initially supported an unban changed their comments later after Sam's reply to the comments (mentioned earlier). However, I have participated in the discussion myself, and as such, despite my attempt to be neutral, I would like it if Fr33kman, who initially unblocked Sam and started this discussion reviews my comments, and officially closes the discussion, by fixing the block etc.

My personal suggestion is that Samlaptop's original block be restored (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot change own talk page). At the end of two years, Sam can make another unban request to the admin mailing list. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, my block at en.wikipedia they haven't blocked my e-mail there. This block is a bit strict because if my e-mail isn't disabled at en.wikipedia, it shouldn't be disabled here at Simple Wikipedia. Do not restore my block.--Sam (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to follow enwiki, we are not enwiki. If we decide to revoke your email, then we will do this. There is no "They did over there...blabla" -Barras (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, I e-mailed the admin list and fr33kman replyed on my talkpage and said that you'll be banned and blocked indef if you vandalise any single page. I, myself don't get banned on any more forums and won't vandalise on Wikipedia. The forum I showed fr33kman was the one which I haven't been banned from 2 years so that's a proof that I'm sensible. My Wiki also prooves that I can make constructive edits on a Wiki and so I'll do here at Simple Wikipedia. I want to help edit at Simple Wikipedia because I use this Wiki when I want to find information and if I find an error I can fix it and I can create article about things that I know.--Sam (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we care about non-wikmedia foundation stuff? I don't care about any forum you have not been banned from. Maybe there are thousands of other forums where you have been banned from. I also haven't been banned from a forum I regularly visit. So what? -Barras (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because after I been editing for a long time, it'll proove that I'm no longer a vandal and memebers at English Wikipdeia may consider unblocking me and I also have someone who can help me edit articles as well.--Sam (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This (again!) shows, that you only want to be unbanned from here to get some kind of reputation back, so you can appeal an unblock on the English Wikipedia. This simply shows that you still haven't learnt your lesson on this. -Barras (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff please. The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 19:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of what? He says it in the comment right above Barras's. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what? For you being banned on en and just editing here to be able to appeal an unblock on en later? Let me take a look into your contribs, I'm sure I find a reason to block you too. -Barras (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, just calm down. It's either block this guy or don't block this guy. Don't take things too far. —stay (sic)! 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.