This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey - could you take a look at this?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
User:Moriori has blanked his page and is deleting his (awesome) images, with summaries that speak of being wronged by User:Liftarn. Can I ask you to look into the matter and try to negotiate some kind of happy ending to this, or if you don't have the resources, ask someone else? I ask because I'm plenty busy and tend to have the interpersonal skills of a clam. --Kizor07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
In this case I think this goes a little beyond interpersonal skills - his conduct is outrageous. Personal attacks in allready pointy deletions of images? I've advised him to restore the images and raise the matter at the admin noticeboard here. Liftarn seems to be have been totally reasonable - even apologising for any offence caused whereas Moriori seems to have forgotten why the Community gave him admin tools in the first place. I'm not sure I can promise the happy ending - using admin tools in that way usually has consequences... WjBscribe16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Rejected checkuser request for Iantresman
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm not sure if you or Dmcdevit would be the right person to write to about this. I'm writing to you because you recently moved the Iantresman request to the rejected list. Apparently this is because Dmcdevit wrote "Unnecessary. These have all been since blocked by Raul, along with he IP. I think the matter is resolved" [1]. However, examining the blog logs of Iantresman's suspected sock puppets shows that Leokor has a clean block log. So Dmcdevit was in fact mistaken. Would it be possible to reinstate the Leokor part of the checkuser request? Cardamon20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm really the wrong person to bring this to - Dmcdevit is the checkuser and his determination is the last word - if he says a check is unnecessary it needs to be filed away. If you think he needs to take another look at the request, its prob best to leave him a quick note on his talkpage. WjBscribe20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not intending to run. My off-wiki activities being rather focused on the legal world, I'd prefer to avoid taking up a quasi-judicial role here otherwise editing the Wiki might feel too similar to work. I'm also not yet ready to give up my work on the Mediation Committee and the two roles aren't compatible. I'm confident that at least 6 (assuming that's the number of positions that will end up being filled) good candidates will present themselves and am looking forward to participating in the election process in December. Thanks for the interest though :-) ... WjBscribe21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the goal - though it would probably also involve the other side of the coin - arguing that someone is guilty as well, depending on which side employed me. That's a little way into the future though - at the moment I'm working as an assistant and doing training. WjBscribe21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you know...?
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hey WJB, do you happen to know if Robert Lentz is gay? I'm thinking that I read that sometime, but in looking for sources for the article I started, I haven't found anything that addresses it. (He's a friar, so presumably celibate, but his orientation might be gay, which might make him more accepting of two saints' having been gay.) Anyway, I'd like to note it with a good source if I can, but it's possible I dreamt it all. :) Aleta21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a vague memory that Lentz "repented" and rejoined his Roman Catholic religious order about a year ago so I'm not sure whether its still appropriate to describe him as gay. I have no references however... WjBscribe03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Historians are a bit far from my area, but I don't see any evidence of passing WP:PROF on the basis of his academic impact. Once upon a time, when we had WP:AUTHOR, I'd want to know more about édition Perrin's status (which seems quite respectable), but for a book that has been through three editions, the lack of impact is odd. I looked around fr.wikipedia.org, and their Templar Wikiproject's discussion pages. Here is some discussion of Alain Demurger's criticism (from this source?) of Dalliez's 1996 (Regle et statuts de l'Ordre du Temple?) work. There's some discussion of Dailliez's authorship of this article on the Templars on "l'Encyclopedia Universalis" (where I can't get the homepage, or "view entire article" buttons to work correctly) which seems to involve discussion about his status as a mainstream source. In any case, Daillez is cited in the bibliography of the main article on fr, but I note that while many of the authors in that bibliography have biographical articles, that Dailliez does not (nor can I find an AfD for one). I've asked that wikiproject if they wish to comment on Talk:Laurent Dailliez. Punch-line: I'd go d at AfD, but DGG and other sane people might well go k, might want to ask DGG for his 2c. Cheers, Pete.Hurd19:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello there,
Thank you for taking the time to inform me of what's going on. I will do my best to keep on top of stuff as it comes.. I'm working full time in addition to being a full-time student, so I'll see if I can squeeze an hour or two here or there. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. I have no idea what it was about. I have a request for you: Would you please restore the article Buffy Waltrip? She is the owner of a well-known NASCAR team. She is notable even if the only author has requested blanking of the article. If notability has not been asserted would you restore the article to my sandbox User:Royalbroil/Sandbox so I can assert notability. Thanks! Royalbroil04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A question
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Will. I was just wondering, and this is really for advice at present - would a request for semi-protection on Strictly Come Dancing (and other Strictly pages) be approved simply to prevent anonymous users from adding the scores to the (at present future) results show on Wikipedia before they have been announced to the general public. I know that, personally, it annoys the hell out of me as it spoils the results show. ~~ [Jam][talk]15:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there's a case for semi-protection. Its not vandalism as such and people who want to avoid being spoiled can just not read the article. Though I suppose at the time it is unverified information. I wouldn't protect it but I'm probably more reluctant to protect pages than most admins, so you might want to ask at WP:RFPP and see what happens. WjBscribe18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oi
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If someone creates their own userpage, and they add something like this user did, would it be appropriate for someone else to blank the page, or should I just leave it be?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked them and deleted their userpage - all they've done is vandalised and the username is suspect anyway... WjBscribe00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Especially saying that I seem to now what I'm doing. Now we'll find out! ;-)
Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Beaten to the punch
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Would you be willing to do me a favor and look over the content that was removed and see if there is any use spending time on this? I was hoping to have a clean discussion but we seem to be going in circles and I have no interest in dueling online with people even if I believe in the content. Any advice is appreciated. Benjiboi06:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've read it but I'm not sure I can help you much. I haven't been involved much in this sort of article so frankly I'm not sure what standards we apply to topic notability or how we decide what sources to use. The other guy seems pretty entrenched and I don't like the concept he has of needing a "notable source" - sources are either reliable or not, they don't have to be notable. Is there some sort of Wikiproject that covers this sort of material that you can turn to for a third opinion. Alternatively you could start an article request for comment and see what sort of input you get. Seems that getting more people involved is the obvious way forwards - rather than it just being a deadlock between 2 people. WjBscribe17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Its was one of a series that had been protected for many months that I thought we could try unprotecting - difficult to tell whether some of them need longterm protection without giving unprotection a go for a little while and seeing what happens. WjBscribe18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Converge/Scipo Edit War
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but you have reprimanded this particular user before for his behavior and I was wondering what I can do next. User:Scipo has been involved in edit warring on the Converge (band) article, constantly adding a genre to which the band do not belong and adding a source which has been deemed as linkspam and unreliable to back his claim up. A look at User_talk:Scipo shows that this isn't the only article where he has involved himself with edit wars and the addition of spurious sources, and has received the "last warning" for vandalism. It seems impossible to reason with him; on being informed that his link does not meet WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS he seemed to think we were removing the link just for the fact we didn't like it, not that it was against Wikipedia policy.
I realise this article is in need of a lot of work and may be outside your normal field of articles, but any actual work on improving the article is overshadowed by this constant edit warring. The page was locked a while back because of this one user, and I'd really rather not see it be locked again over this one user's actions (and it is just one user now, Scipo). I'm not sure what I'm hoping you can do in this situation, but I don't really know the proper channels to go about informing someone that a user who was supposedly on his "last chance" a month ago to the day is continuing to cause trouble. Thanks for any response you can give. Olliemilne20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've warned him again - if his pattern of reverting without discussion continues, let me know. I think he's going to have to take some time out from editing if he can't stop his aggressive edit warring. WjBscribe21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't expecting such a speedy response. I hope he listens to an admin, maybe now he will understand he is the one violating policy. I'll let you know in a couple of days if he doesn't change his behaviour and you aren't aware of it. Thanks again! Olliemilne21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You can go back to the page you were redirected from by clicking the link under the title of the destination article. For example - if you clink of this link - Duke of wellington, you'll find yourself at the page Duke of Wellington but below the article title it says (Redirected from Duke of wellington). If you click on the link there you'll be back at the redirect page and will be able to edit it. The same can be achieved by adding &redirect=no to the end of the redirect's URL. WjBscribe03:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for doing that change we discussed - I'd forgotten about it :) in answer to your edit summary, of course I don't mind! Anthøny19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Note on 3RR
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I usually do not contact involved sysop however I left my comment on your remarks, please reply [2]. Cheers, M.K.20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
re:Previous account
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for the concern. It was me, yes. I'm waiting for the contributions to come through to my new account before putting proof somewhere Jackrm is me. Thanks again. — jacĸ (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, do you know how long it takes all the edits I made under Jackrm to be moved to the contributions list of Jack? — jacĸ (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Will it do me any good to report an anonymous user (84.12.242.82) to AiV for vandalism that is now more than 20 minutes old? He was only warned twice, 'cause no one checked his contributions. I am now up to a level 4 warning for his recent vandalism, with this disgusting edit to the Eliza Taylor-Cotter still to go: (I wish I was her brother so I can pound her vag every night). That seems to call for a block in and of itself. Tell me what you think, if you have a moment. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't report at present - it looks like a shared IP so we couldn't be sure a block would catch the same user. If they've stopped it won't achieve much. As I see it, the key factors in blocking are whether the vandal is still active and whether they are likely to active again in the duration of the block (rather than the severity of the vandal edits themselves). A first block would prob only be 24 hours and looking at the IP's history it may not edit in that period anyway. Do report it if it starts again though. WjBscribe23:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything you've said makes perfect sense. I guess I was just so disgusted by what he'd written I wanted to see him punished. Perhaps that was not the best approach. Thanks for your response. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
3rr
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Take note that the talk page of the article is mostly filled with my comments aiming at preparing some compromise version. //Halibutt00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Another RfA Spaming
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for constructive criticism in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.
Can you help me?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You reverted vandalism on my user page a couple of days ago, I just got attacked last night by a different user name (but using the same phrases which looks pretty suspicious) I'm not sure what to do? Thanks in advance. MorganaFiolett09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like Anthony.bradbury has warned the user. He'll definitely be blocked indefinitely if he vandalises again- I agree that the accounts look like they're connected. Its a suspicious first edit. If this becomes an ongoing problem, we can semi-protect your userpage so that IPs and new editors can't edit it. WjBscribe16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem - he was actually already blocked but blocked users can still edit their talkpages (so they can post unblock requests). His talkpage is now fully protected to prevent further abuse. WjBscribe04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I think I have created a problem at this page. I have re-submitted a request but apparently is not working. It doesn't show at the main check user page either. Can you please help? I'd appreciate it. Evinatea13:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just issued another warning to Scipo for continuing to edit war and ignore previous discussion and consensus on numerous Wikipedia articles. This is not the first time the user has been warning about WP:3RR. 216.21.150.4404:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I understand why you unprotected this article, but we did not even make it 48 hours before the page was blanked twice. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this article is such a target for vandalism. It baffles me, frankly. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJBscribe, I saw that this user has created inappropriate content on his/her talk page. Since this is the creator's talk page, would it still be appropriate for me to tag his/her talk page for speedy deletion? And in this case, I would imagine, G1 or G3.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that user was blocked indefinately for vandalism and the talk page has been protected. I just wanted to know in future situations if someone added what this user added to his/her talk page if it would be appropriate for me to tag the talk page for speedy deletion.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Depends a little on the circumstances. If its really blatant then it should be OK - especially if an attack page. Otherwise blank it and replace it with a warning. Its not really something that comes up that often... WjBscribe02:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
You go! Every time I go to block a user, I get a block screen that says you've just done it. You rock. On the plus side, it also gives me a nice chance to calibrate my blocks - it's nice to see someone else making the same judgment call that I am, and for the same time period, etc. Anyway, I'm impressed, and keep up the good work! - Philippe | Talk23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice! lol. I can't tell you how many times you've been the blocking admin for one of my reports, you're speedy! A great asset to AIV, if you ask my humble opinion (which, of course, you didn't, lol, sorry to butt in!). Ariel♥Gold00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know- opinion welcome. I'm never sure if reporters check to see which admin blocked the vandal - I figure that from your point of view its more how quickly they get blocked than who does it :-)... WjBscribe00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I keep an Excel spreadsheet on my AIV/UAA reports, lol. (Nerdy girl? Me? Nahhh). I have a 97.7% block rate on over 100 AIV reports, lol. :o) Ariel♥Gold00:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wow, figures I don't categorize it by admin, eh? Lemme look it over and just see trends: You, Wknight, Dreadstar, Hut 8.5, And Misza, but the admin data only goes back to late September, so it could be more. But, from my own memory, you, Wknight, Dread, and Zzuuzz often see a report of mine, and within a minute (literally) it is blocked. Always nice to see things handled so quickly. Of course, I don't report until things get really out of hand, so by the time I send a report, the vandal is really in need of blocking, lol. Anyway, you do an awesome job, and I'm always quite happy to see your name on my watchlist manning the AIV desk! Ariel♥Gold00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd support (heck, I'd second) that nomination. The concept of a "leaderboard" for blocking is intriguing. I'm almost tempted to do some digging on that and see what I can find out, trendswise. Be a fun new way to play with SPSS, methinks. - Philippe | Talk00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bots
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry the case wasn't obvious to me. I just wanted to err on the side of caution, just in case if the IP was not a sock. But I guess that WP:DUCKdid apply in this case.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.02:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Not having dealt with many RfA's, and certainly not having dealt with such shenanigans on an RfA, I didn't know whether comments (esp. attempted !votes) could be deleted outright. So, I moved them per the discussion. Thank you for cleaning up the mess, and for blocking the user. ZZClaims~ Evidence01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No prob. It is rather sticking one's neck out to remove RfA comments I know. It generally should be done but I felt in this case the evidence that this was a sock of a banned user was pretty overwhelming- that first post by the IP is pretty distinctive. Such accusations aren't exactly Common. We'll see what happens but I'm fairly confident about the block. WjBscribe02:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both. The guy weirds me out a little, especially when I remember what a mindbogglingly nice guy mayor Zeidler was and contemplate that I am being hounded like this for being his friend (and for disclosing this friendship on my userpage, lest I be suspected of a hidden COI). --Orange Mike02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As optional as RfA questions I'd say. But as with those optional questions, people might still oppose if they think a particular question should have been answered. WjBscribe04:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This is presently being discussed here - Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007#Age_limit? My understanding was that someone under 18 could serve as an Arbitrator but wouldn't have access to checkuser and oversight. Ultimately its up to Jimbo I guess as he appoints the Arbitrators. At the moment no ArbCom Members are under 18, however Sam Korn (talk·contribs) was when he served on ArbCom - and held checkuser & oversight rights before the Foundation introduced the age restriction. WjBscribe19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
RE:CHU
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Lead(II) nitrate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Thanks for letting me know, but as I have only reverted vandalism to that article, not made substantiate edits, I doubt I'll have much to add to the review process. WjBscribe02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankspam
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you...
...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.
Thank you again and, best regards, Neranei
This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Will, could you help me out here? You recently replied to a very new editor seeking a WP:CHU/U in terms of "try again in a couple of months when you have more edits"; I sought a usurpation about a week ago and was rebuffed as a new editor, despite having been here for three months with now almost 4000 edits to my name, most of them good, and distributed across multiple namespaces. I'm wondering whether the criteria are varying between bureaucrats, and if there are any sort of guidelines. The current system seems to be a bit "hit and miss" in this respect. Suppose this guy comes back in "a couple of months" with, say, 800 edits and gets his usurpation? How am I supposed to feel about that? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Deskana's comment that you were too new was rather strict - the crats generally only require a couple of months and a couple of hundred edits. There are some guidelines (actually Deskana and I co-wrote them - see WP:CHUG). That said, they aren't obliged to rename anyone. Looking at your request though (Pyracantha ← Rodhullandemu I presume) the more important factor is that your requested name has edits. I would expect that if you requested a name that hasn't edited the usurpation would be allowed. WjBscribe02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I understood that, I just got the impression that I had to fulfil both conditions, I understand about the requested name, and I'll see if I can find an unused one or think of something more suitable. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You do have to meet both bits, but I can't see how your account wouldn't be established enough - maybe Deskana confused yours with another request? WjBscribe02:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Gimmetrow
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry, I haven't done any bureaucrat stuff in years, and haven't the foggiest idea how I would go about it now. I would try to work through the instructions, but I've got to go to bed now... Tuf-Kat03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello WJBscribe. I shall attend to your request and expand my answer. But I will need some time for studying the usurpation with edits issue. Allow me a few hours please. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I've been reading WT:USURP where you seem to participate a lot, but did not find that much pressure for bureaucrats to allow usurpation of accounts with a few edits. From what I could understand, there's some copyright issues that would go against such procedure. Anyway, I don't think I would ever usurp an account with edits, especially without consulting fellow bureaucrats first. Húsönd01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
WJBscribe;
This was closed by Tony Sidaway as delete but then deleted by you.
Tony Sidaway's continuing to close AfD items as "delete" contradicts both the written process at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions and the overridding consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Weird_stuff_removed. In particular, Tony attempted to change the process so that non-admins could close non-keep results, started a talk page thread on it, had his suggestion rejected with extreme prejudice, and then simply continued as if nothing had happened.
I'd ask that you review these pages and discussions and if you beleive that the practice actually needs changing contribute to the thread on the talk page. Otherwise facilatiating this behavior simply shifts burden from a system with little backlog and large oversight (AfD) to one with huge backlog and low oversight (CsD). For an example of this, please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derry, County Sligo where the deleting admin was confused by Tony's actions and potentially deleted w/o full examination.
Tony Sidaway was an administrator on this project for a long time. He is perfectly capable of closing a unanimous AfD and the correct result was obviously reached here. I reviewed the AfD, found his close to be correct, and deleted the article accordingly. An admin reviewing a CSD G6 deletion request on the basis of a closed XfD should always review the deletion discussion in question and non-admin closes can be reverted if incorrect. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I really can't see a problem with Tony helping out with the AfD backlog in this way. WjBscribe22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G6 - Housekeeping? That's a stretch that borders on nonsensical. While "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" the "rules" should apply equally to former adminstrators. If Tony wants to perform these functions, he should ask for the bit back, via normal RfA as required by The Arbitration Comittee. But again, if you're happy to facilitate Tony's actions, in light of him attempting to get the process changed, ignoring the consensus, etc, that's up to you. Thank you for your time. CygnetSaIad23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree this falls under G6, and that using G6 to ask for the deletion of an XfD that was closed as delete is perfectly reasonable. 1 != 200:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't intend this to be drawn out, but the template in question states "Use this template if an administrator closed an Articles for deletion..." pretty clearly. Both the written process for closes and the extensive (and near-unanimous) discussions on the talk page linked above make it clear that non-adminstrators shouldn't close as delete. To suggest that a template performs an end-around on that is close to the mortal sin of wiki-lawyering. - CygnetSaIad00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No its a pretty sane avoidance of rules-lawyering. There is a huge difference between a close of a new user who has only been editing a few weeks and one by a former admin whose ability to make the close in question I have confidence in. Having a general rule against non-admin closes is sensible, having exceptions to that rule also makes sense. Are you seriously saying that I should have detagged the article, reverted Tony's close, then reclosed the debate with the same result and deleted the article. Does that not strike you as absurd? WjBscribe00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh... no. Don't think that I ever suggested that. I'm suggesting that we seperate the acute problem from the chronic one. That when and if you see another close like this one:
You review the close. I believe that you use the tools responsibally, so this is taken-as-read.
That you revert and re-close. This takes about ten extra seconds.
That you delete the article, presuming that you agree with the close.
That you then remind Tony that he shouldn't be closing as delete.
The very short history of Tony's non-admin closes I've recorded on my talk shows two recorded either incorrectly in the logs (deletion reason wrong or that don't link to AfD) as well as one where Tony dukes it out with the closing admin over his right to close. It's a very small thing to ask Tony to stop doing, given that it's explicitly forbidden as well as causing confusion. Not potentially causing it but actually demonstrably doing so. CygnetSaIad01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're combining separate issues into one problem. Tony shouldn't have edit warred with an admin over the close of that RfA you reference and the admin who deleted the article Tony tagged with a summary that suggested a recreation should have used a different summary. But your proposals above would be process for the sake of process. The closes by Tony that I have reviewed have always been correct. I have therefore deleted accordingly and see no reason to change that approach. If I think he is mistaken in his assessment of consensus, I would revert and subtitute an alternative close. I really can't see how the points you set out above would benefit the project - lets avoid bureaucracy where it isn't needed. Any issues you have with Tony are probably best resolved by discussion with him. WjBscribe01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I see that vandal vandalised Jimbo's userpage :O and replaced it with a comment that I supposedly did that. Obviously that wasn't me, but I have some information on that vandal. I know that user in real life, and unfortuneately was at his/her house when this happened. Here's what happened. I suggested a song to download for said person from Wikipedia:Song, but he/she said that it's dumb. That person actually knew a lot about Wikipedia, but is sometimes against it. He/she knew that Jimmy Wales was the founder, and decided to vandalise his userpage. I tried to convince him/her not to do so, but had neither the physical strength nor the persuasionability to convince him/her not to do so. That user actually has contributed constructive to Wikipedia before, and has also vandalised it, using sockpuppets. I will not list his/her suspected sockpuppets because I can't actually prove it, and also because people in real life will call me a tattletale if I do. That user almost convinced me to log into Wikipedia on my account on his/her computer, but I didn't because I knew that it would result in consequences especially if he/she peeked at my password or if that user edited under my account. Sorry for not being able to stop that user in time, and hopefully that never happens again. Why do I know wiki-vandals in real life? I guess because they thought I was a nerd for editting wikipedia and decided to vandalise it for some reason, and I can't just "never talk to them again" simply because they vandalised Wikipedia. Apologies for any inconvinience. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Howdy WJBscribe, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. I have to add that at the time of your offer I really didn't plan on this - it was merely that frustration with the spam page got to me! Thanks & regards --Herbytalk thyme12:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of "List of people who died on their birthdays"
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I've just discovered this article has been deleted. I'm looking for some discussion of the deletion/retention issue other than the vote itself (with reasons) and the outcome. I'm presuming there was some discussion before it ever got to the voting stage, but for the life of me it seems buried in the system somewhere. Can you help? Cheers -- JackofOz13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I noticed that you recently deleted a page I created about Dr. Tim Ryan, an American Culinary Federation-Certified Master Chef who's the president of The Culinary Institute of America, a world-renowned culinary college. I was wondering if you could provide some feedback about what I need to do to ensure that, if I re-submit the article, it will remain posted on Wikipedia. I had noticed that the presidents of other colleges in our immediate region -- Vassar, Bard, Marist -- all have separate entries on Wikipedia. Indeed, just about every college I checked on Wikipedia had separate pages for their presidents.
So I guess I'm just wondering what I did wrong in submitting Dr. Ryan's entry. I'm fairly new to the whole Wikipedia submission experience, so please forgive me my ignorance. I would like to re-submit the page "Tim Ryan (college president)" and want to make sure I do it right this time. Thanks in advance for any recommendations you can make to help me with this. Jnormy16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like I didn't delete the article - only a page that pointed to the article, which was located at Tim Ryan, C.M.C., Ed.D., President, The Culinary Institute of America after the target page was deleted. It looks like this page was deleted by Lucasbfr (talk·contribs), who may be able to tell you more. But looking into it, his reason for deletion was that the text was a copyright violation - the problem seems to have been that the test was copied from this page. Wikipedia article need to be original content and cannot be reproduced from other websites without official notification from the copyright holder that they license the work to be used freely by anyone (not just WIkipedia). WjBscribe00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion request
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren(talk)23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Were I in your position, I do not believe that I would even bother responding to Wetman's rude, presumptious comments. As you rightly said, the talk page for the article is no place for such comments, anyway, and what result was he expecting from it? I saw the comment on the King Arthur article, and almost deleted it as inflammatory, trouble-making, and having nothing to do with actually improving the article. I do want to point out, however, that I did leave a comment here about the unprotection of William Blake article, and you never responded. Regardless, Wetman's behavior is out of bounds. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'05:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I do apologise, I seem to have missed your comment about that article entirely. If this happens again do feel free to presume that I never deliberately ignore messages and that if I have responded to others and not you, this is an oversight on my part. Feel free to nudge. I don't think William Blake is bad enough to need protecting again if one takes into account that there were several edits by the same IP on November 15. Other admins may validly reach a different conclusion however, do feel free to request reprotection at WP:RFPP. And definitely do so (or nudge me again) should things get any worse, though that page is also on my watchlist so I shall be keeping an eye as well. Best wishes, WjBscribe05:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Good sir, please be assured that I never presumed you deliberately ignored my message. I assumed, rather, as you say, that it was an oversight. I was busy with other things as well, and did not check back for a few days, by which point the message had been archived. It is no matter. I have my eye on that article regularly, and we shall keep it free of garbage, I am sure. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'05:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have thought about it, and I am willing to accept your RfA nomination. I have prepared my answers to the 3 standard questions. I greatly appreciate your faith in me! Royalbroil14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I find it interesting the number of problems that are actually caused when we are attempting to solve other problems. Some time back, I moved the article IRA Abwehr World War II to IRA/Abwehr collaboration in World War II, because that seems to me be a more accurate and complete title. Fine. That is, until I looked at the talk page ([[3]]), where on sees a link [[< Talk:IRA]], indicating that Wikipedia sees this talk page as a subpage of main IRA talk page. Even worse, when one clicks said link, one is taken to a stray talk page that no longer corresponds to an article. "IRA" is now a redirect to "Ira" dab page, which dab page has a discussion page with no content. So, long story short, how do we sort all this out? It seems, first and foremost, that IRA/Abwehr collaboration in World War II will have to be moved again, perhaps to IRA-Abwehr collaboration in World War II. Then, that stray talk page will have to go somewhere, though I know not where. What are your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A page move by a bureaucrat? There's no reason why editorial actions by admins or crats should be treated differently to those of anyone else. So you could be bold and move it if you think its a simple mistake. If you think their choice of name was deliberate but you want to propose a different one, rasing it on their talkpage and failing that the article talkpage seems a good way to approach it. WjBscribe18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wow, I never expected to find a reasonable admin. In any case, I don't object to the warnings on my talk page because they relate to previous users. I am, also, those previous users. I just don't like all the clutter on my talk page. 70.173.50.153 (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Info
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks. Knew it was worth making you an admin for a reason - even if you did shun my offer in favour of Lar ;) .... WjBscribe10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting - dumping links on here, en wq & commons at a minimum using open proxies - I guess a bot at work. And seriously - you comment may have made me think but I hadn't planned to do it (still trying to keep a nice low profile):) Cheers --Herbytalk thyme11:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Then unblock me so I can go do other things. Jehochman and Durova's bad blocks are the only source of disruption here. If the rules say I'm blocked forever because Durova says I'm MyWikiBiz, then the rules are bullshit so why should I follow them? Durova made it so that saying anything at all about my block, even on my talk page, was a violation of the rules. A classic Catch 22 - if I complain about my block, and question her secret evidence which we all know by now gives wrong answers all the time, that proves that I should be blocked. But if I didn't complain, no one would even know there was a problem and I'd still be blocked. The one thing Durova and Jehochamn haven't tried was unblocking me and letting me edit, because it would beome pretty obvious that I'm not MyWikiBiz and they botched everything from the get-go. You call my conversation "disruption" only because I'm editing from TOR nodes, but who forced me to do that? If I wanted to vandalize things or cause trouble, that's what I'd be doing. I'm just talking about my block. Unblock me, and I'll move on. 24.19.33.8212:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want your block reviewed there are proper channels - as you well know given your assertion that you are a longtime editor. The block on your IP is anon-only so you may contribute with your account at any time. I recommend either emailing the unblock list or the arbitration committee. But this constant block evasion is getting tedious and I confess you have eroded any support I may originally have had for your position. WjBscribe12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
But Durova said she would ban my regular account whoever I am. So either I'm Kohs and banned, or I'm not Kohs and will be banned. Anyway you're not supposed to have to fax your identity papers to ArbCom or anyone else to edit. I'm not MyWikiBiz, even Durova knows that or what are they investigating? So the block should be reversed. I don't want to be talking about this anymore than you do and I won't be once I'm unblocked. They're creating their own drama here. 24.19.33.8212:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you needed to fax them ID, I said it was the proper channel to ask for your block to be reviewed. I think it would be inappropriate for Durova or Jehochman to block your account given their involvement. And anyone who did would need to show evidence. Of course, they may cite disruptive editing using Tor nodes - but then you've rather opened yourself up to that accusation by taking that route rather than taking advice and opting for the unblock list/ArbCom. WjBscribe13:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You were blocked - if you think the block was unfair, I've suggested two routes for you to appeal. Instead you have chosen to edit war across Wikipedia using proxies. I'm sorry but I don't find your approach condusive to having much sympathy for your cause. WjBscribe13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Deletion Question
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
It was a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). There is a general consensus that we should not have redirects from the mainspace to the wikipedia namespace. Such redirects are felt to blur the line between encyclopedic content for readers, and the meta-content designed for its editors. WjBscribe00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
is there anything i can do to redirect it again? when i searched "In-universe" to read up on it, it came up with no results even close to it, so i had to look for a page with the template Ctjf8303:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
can i reopen a discussion on redirecting it to what it use to have...like i said, i had a hard time finding the article to read up on in-universe Ctjf8306:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your reply. No you can't really reopen the discussion - I can't see any new arguments and the result was pretty clear. You could appeal it at deletion review but I doubt you'd have much luck. As I said (and as the discussion demonstrates) editors are generally of the opinion that she should avoid cross-namespace redirects. If you're looking for a shortcut to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) - WP:WAF seems to be the one most used. WjBscribe02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Henry Ford unprotection
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I think it may need to be reprotected. Since your unprotect, it's already had:1, 2*, 3, 4, 5* incidences of vandalism, two of which were clearly anti-semetism agenda edits. Is another round of semi-protection needed?ThuranX (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly there have also been 2 good IP edits [4] and a vandal reversion. I'd rather not reprotect it just yet though might be willing in a couple days. Feel free to list it at WP:RFPP if you would like a second opinion. WjBscribe10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There have been a few more ,but I'll give it through tomorrow to see if it cools off, otherwise, i'll re-request at least a week to avoid turkey-time bored vandals. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Reprotected - no expiry. Seems unlikely things would be different in a week. Can always be reviewed again in a few months. WjBscribe22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks for correcting erection (page)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Now that I've got your attention... regarding the erection page, thanks for reverting to the 'correct' version, I must have only seen the two photos instead of 4 and so I guess I reverted to a 'slightly' censored page. Epthorn (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Creating an Account
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Based on your kind note, I was about to explain my reasoning for continuing to edit from an "anonymous" IP. Namely, I don't wish to become embroiled in the political aspects of Wikipedia. I'm not interested in people "smiling" at me, giving me virtual awards for my supposed "good work," or asking me to support them in their latest quixotic attempt to build "consensus."
I just want to clean up muddled entries and remove long stagnant policy templates to make the encyclopedia palatable to the casual user. While Wikipedia likes to advance the notion that everyone is an editor, it still makes sense to treat the articles as if they had readers.
However, based on the actions of Fogeltje (most specifically, of course, the rude comments in the change log of my talk page, but also his previous knee-jerk reversion of reasonable edits as vandalism), I've decided to just give the whole thing up.
I suppose it's possible that a single anonymous IP user such as myself could wreak havoc on the integrity of the encyclopedia. However, the proliferation of automated unthinking "vandalbots," registered users with watch lists to "protect" their self-proclaimed fiefdoms, and administrators steeped in the political culture of Wikipedia decidedly are doing so.
So, that's it for me. I wish you well as the sole administrator I have found who hasn't lost sight of the stated end goal of this project.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Sir,
I feel that you have unfairly speedily deleted the entry for centertaint. If I may refer you to criteria for speedy deletion section:
"Non-criteria
The following are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify speedy deletion.
Neologisms. If not obviously ridiculous, new specialized terms should have a wider hearing."
You may or may not agree with the terminology used to describe the concept, but the argument that it is nonsense is simply unfounded. The sentence clearly indicates the part of the body indicated by the term and is easily understandable. The existence of the centertaint may be due to either plastic surgery or genetic abnormalities. If you insist on further establishing the existence of the centertaint, I would refer you to writings on hermaphrodites. The existence of humans with both external and internal sexual organs from both sexes is acknowledged on wikipedia itself. The article needs further clarification, I admit, such as making the term inclusive of both sexes, but these refinements come with further editing. Please reinstate centertaint, or at least allow for a deletion discussion.
The article I deleted was nonsense. You may create an article about "centertaint" that is not nonsense if you wish. I would advise you to include reliable thid party sources about the term. If you think my speedy deletion was incorrect, you may appeal it at deletion review. WjBscribe22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought."...please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:... 2. Original inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it." --Orange Mike | Talk22:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Accuse of racism
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry, I missed this among the other threads. Checkuser requests aren't something any admin can do, it requires someone with special access - for example I requested a check on ICarriere at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ICarriere. Checkusers are only supposed to be run where multiple accounts are being abused as IP info is regarded as private information. It doesn't look like those three being the same people would be a problem so I doubt a check could be run. Let me know if I've missed anything. WjBscribe23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't interfere with this - you must see how close it is to agreement, why are you risking derailing that? WjBscribe18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that simply asking the permanent record (the block log) be set straight causes any risk for derailment - any reasonable admin will admit they made an error. Videmus OmniaTalk18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It just seems a rather minor point - Durova has just agreed to unblock them - the block log is now fairly irrelevant and I see no reason to add further accusations of wrongdoing to it. WjBscribe18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm glad Durova has unblocked the IP, though I'm very disappointed that she didn't face up to her own wrongdoing in the affair. The reason I care about this is that I myself have been the victim of one of these idiotic "sockpuppet" blocks; you have no idea how frustrating and infuriating it is unless you have been through it. What made it worse is that I was treated like the worst kind of scum in my attempt to get unblocked; my initial unblock request on my talk page was simply denied by a supporter of the original blocker without justification, when I went to IRC I was treated rudely and told I had to give up my privacy to prove my innocence. If I hadn't been persistent I simply would have been forced to leave the project when I hadn't done a single thing wrong.
In my case, the blocker was Ryulong; I've had no previous interaction with Durova, to my knowledge, until the whole User:!! fiasco drew her conduct to my attention. I saw the issue with this IP when I noticed your attempts to silence their complaints at WP:ANI. I tried to help because I really don't think this person would have gotten any justice without an experienced user speaking on their behalf and calling the involved admins on their abysmal conduct in this case. The bottom line, from my perspective, is that it's absolutely wrong to treat new and anonymous users like this - making unwarranted accusations and invading their privacy. Maybe you catch some disruptive users earlier than you might have otherwise...who really knows? The price paid in lost good users and in unnecessary drama is simply not worth it. Videmus OmniaTalk18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I confess I know little of you and your history under this username. My recollection of you is from your previous username (where I must say I had a high opinion of you) and the circumstances that resulted in you no longer editing under that name. I was in fact with Ryan in Manchester shortly after that incident. Perhaps I allowed that to overly cloud my view of you - that incident is now many months ago I recognise. But perhaps reflecting on that you will understand why I find you a troubling advocate of anonymous editing (in the sense of not using one's main account).
I pointed you to the original thread on this matter - I was not supportive of the reasons for the block but I do not think these matters are solved by admins waging war on each other and overturning each others blocks. Instead I pursued a longer term diplomatic appraoch, some behind the scenes with people on both sides of this particular solution. The ultimate outcome may be sub-optimal in some ways but in my view there was never realistically going to be a better one. My hope is that everyone will no move on for this. The wider concerns about Durova's recent blocks seems to be recieving a lot of scrutiny elsewhere so its not as if everything is being brushed under the carpet. Anyway, if you feel I was unfair in rejecting your involvement I apologise, but it did makes things more difficult for me. WjBscribe19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Following up an earlier protection request I made ([5]), I am happy to report the glimmer of compromise and so would ask for the following pages to be unprotected per emerging compromise:
Could you point me towards discussions about this. I'd like to gain a feel for how likely the pages are to remain stable if unprotected. WjBscribe08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. OK, that seems worth giving a go. So is it just those 4 pages above that should be unprotected at this stage? WjBscribe00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That's right. Those are the only four protected pages that I think can be edited up to standard that meets notability guidelines at this time. Thanks. Acegikmo1 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I fully agree with you that WJBscribe would make a fine bureaucrat, and I believe he would pass if he went for it now, I think the best thing to do would be for WJB to nominate himself as I recall an RfB a few months back being opposed because someone else nominated the user. Ryan Postlethwaite03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It's traditional for an RfB candidate to do a self nom because they have to put there views across about consensus and the way they'd judge how RfA's turn out, something which only the candidate can show. Bureaucrats should also truly want to the job, and if someone else nominates, it suggests that they have been forced into it. Sorry U.S.A.... It's just a bad idea for you to write a nom. Ryan Postlethwaite11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I expect that you'll still offer your strong support which I am sure will be appreciated as much as a nom! :-) Thanks for understanding. Ryan Postlethwaite11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank your for taking the time to think of me U.S.A. - it is much appreciated. I think Ryan is right that there is an expectation that candidates for bureaucratship will nominate themselves so they can explain to the community why they would make a good crat and what they bring to the job. I'm sure your nom would be fantastic but its probably not a tradition that should be departed from :-). As to the larger question, a part of me does still wonder if its too soon but I think it only right now to let the community make that determination. A couple of factors - Deskana's checkuser responsibilities and potential ArbCom ones and Secretlondon again being rather stressed through having to shoulder the majority of the rename work herself (she's now renamed nearly 800 users) - have persuaded me that an extra crat would be useful to the community. And so yes - I am willing to run at RfB in the near future. WjBscribe08:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Its OK. I knew you weren't asking for that but I still thinks its a good caveat for me to have on my opinion. I am uncomfortable with commenting on the consensus of the RfAs of serving administrators because I don't want to undermine them or make them feel that they lack my support of them now they are an admin. WjBscribe23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Unprotection of Life article
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJBscribe,
Just to say I'm not sure the unprotection of the Life article is working! I appreciate why you decided to give it a go as a non-protected article again, however it has had 9 cases of vandalism in the two days since it has become editable by anonymous users. I was the one who made the original request for it to be semi-protected on a permanent basis. The problem is that it is a very high profile subject and it seems that many disgruntled people come to that page seeking the meaning of 'life', don't find it in the text and then trash the article!
Before the original protection it would get multiple vandalisms per day - consistently. My feeling is that it should be semi-protected again. I don't know if you can just do this, or whether a formal request has to be made again? Thanks. --CharlesC (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am keeping an eye on the page. I was thinking of reprotecting at first but it has now gone for nearly 2 clear days without any vandalism at all so I'm not sure protection is warranted right now. If the previous vandalism levels resume it can be reprotected. You can either ask me or post a request at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is just what it was like before though. There might have been the odd day when it wasn't vandalised but it was pretty consistent. (It was only one day vandal-free, as there's just been another!) --CharlesC (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just not convinced that that sort of level of vandalism should lead to semi-protection, which should really be a last resort. It seems to me that the present vandalism can be managed just by reverting it. But I don't mind you asking for a second opinion - feel from to ask for reprotection at WP:RFPP and see what the admin who responds to the request thinks about it. If they decide to protect it again, I wouldn't have any problem with that... WjBscribe21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Block summary
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You might know/remember I have been ranting and raving a little about what I believe were obscure blocks with inproper supplied reasoning of people discussing the range of pedophile issues. I would just like to applaud your clear summary here. If all those blocks that I have protested in the past had such clear summaries, it would have saved me a lot of trouble and frustration. Thumbs up! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Its not a part of the job I enjoy I have to tell you. I am not a fan of witchhunts and if any legitimate editor is blocked in error we are all the poorer for it, but there comes a point where accounts/IPs here solely to strongly push a line on a particular topic need to be firmly shown the door. And yes, I remember a discussion you had with Charles Matthews - as I recall you were kind enough to notify me of it. That's a surprisingly rare courtesy. WjBscribe14:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That was indeed a bit of an unfortunate episode. I still think it's a shame that I never managed to get clear responses out of that. I found that contact the ArbCom is in fact easier said then done. Getting a mail through to the mailinglist is harder than it sounds, and there is no confirmation it is actualy sent through. (Though I have been told it did). Though the ArbCom has no obligation to respond, I found it a shame that I never received any clarification. I more or less assumed that when you can contact the ArbCom with questions, that also implied getting an asnwer. Don't get me wrong though, I trust the ArbCom and its rulings and decissions, but I am a firm believer that everything on Wikipedia should leave a papertrail. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The advice ArbCom has given admins on handling these issues hasn't been much clearer. Let us see whether communication channels (both in and out of ArbCom) improve with the new members that will be joining it in January. WjBscribe14:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can I ask what's happening at my talk page. I'm a bit confused, I logged on and it said I had messages, but it was just you removing stuff? Thanks! Gentleness · Talk19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I reverted edits by an account that seemed to have been created to harass one of the site's administrators. They left rather a cryptic message on your talkpage - I don't know if it means any more to you than it did to me - but as the other edits by the account seemed to be attempts to cause trouble I assumed that too was not a welcome post. WjBscribe21:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
When a Requests for commment has been created on a user, do I have to wait for the respsonse from the user, or can I go ahead and endorse the RfC now?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to wait for the subject of the RfC's response if that isn't going to be a factor in your endorsing it or not. Remember that you need to have tried and failed to resolve the matter with the user in question if you endorse a user conduct RfC. WjBscribe17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that I need to have tried and failed to resolve a dispute to sign my name under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". But that also goes for signing under "Other users who endorse this statement"?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're quite right - I said "endorse" when I meant "certify" - you can sign the second section if you just agree with what has been said. WjBscribe17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I heard of you recently when you responded to my ANI request to update the DYK page. It was about 7 hours overdue. Thank you! As a result, I also see you are running for bureaucrat. It's not clear to me why someone would want to be a bureaucrat. Rather than ask you on the RFB, which may be interpreted as a hostile question or may invite hostile editors to start a fight, I'm asking it to you semi-privately (or at least off-RFB).
To me, the main powers are renaming and deciding on RFA's. These seem like just incremental extra powers. Of course, being a bureaucrat is a higher title so if one wants to be the next Jimbo Wales when he retires, that might help.
The other observation I have is that someone brought up the question of Ryulong. It is unfortunately that he has been so controversial. It would have been nice if he became admin with less than 70% but then went on to be a well respected admin. I don't know all the details but I've seen some rather unflattering comments about Ryulong on ANI. Archtransit (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Being a bureaucrat has very little to do with power - it might be power if one were allowed to chose who became an admin and who doesn't, but one really doesn't. Even on controversial closely run RfAs, a crat should be interpreting what the community has said in their comments rather than coming to their own conclusions about how good the candidate is. Bureaucrats have a series of tools that could be seriously misused and so we really restrict access to them but ultimately a bureaucrat doesn't hold a leadership position. Like admins they should regard themselves as servants of the wider community. The job isn't really glamorous but I spend quite a bit of time helping out keep renames running smoothly and am involved in the other processes. Its more of a question of "seeing as I'm there, I may as well help properly" than "this is something totally new I'd like to start doing". No ambitions to be Jimbo Wales - in fact I think you'd find most people would see a longterm phasing out of Jimbo rather than looking to replace him in the future. People wielding power is slightly incongruous with the Wiki concept. I really don't like commenting on other admins without them being around - Ryulong does a lot of very good work and is very much on the "front line" when it comes to dealing with vandals and spammers. He sometimes gets carried away however and its a fact of life that mistakes draw a lot more attention than a much larger volume of good work that is being done quietly. Anyway, hopefully that answers your question... WjBscribe20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A much longer and thoughtful answer that I was expecting. I do understand your concept of service to the community. For example, my work on DYK earns me no pay or recognition. Yet, I am happy to do it. In fact, I would not mind getting DYK admin powers without other admin powers. However, that's not practical since extra layers are hard to implement (imagine those wanting AFD-only admin powers, AIV-only powers, etc.). I am inclined to add my support but need to do the cursory checks first. As far as Ryulong concept (not him specifically), I think it is not wise to get "carried away", even sometimes. However, that's just my own behavioral guidelines. Archtransit (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK updaters are always needed - I recently nominated Royalbroil for adminship as someone with mainly content creating experience who is active at DYK who will be willing to help in that area. My experience of RfA is that people want to be persuaded that should you need to you would block in appropriate circumstances and that you have sufficient (but not necessarily extensive) familiarity with the deletion processes to know what's going on. Think of it this way - I rarely do DYK work but when you posted that it was overdue I was able to do it and give out the right notices to the article talk pages and the contributors. I guess people like to think that if you were an admin who didn't do much anti-vandal work that were told "there are 20 vandalism reports at WP:AIV and no one to block them" you would at a crunch be able to go through them and block those that needed blocking and remove the rest.
So I'd encourage you to keep adminship in mind - I see you've already had need to report some vandals and have been involved in the occasional deletion discussion. You don't have to dedicate hours of your time to vandal reverting and deletion discussions to show people you could handle those areas if need be. And being willing to update protected pages like DYK is a very good reason to want to be an adminstrator. In a month or two, I think you could be in a position for a successful RfA if that was something you wanted to do. WjBscribe21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, what a compliment! Better than a barnstar, in my opinion, because a barnstar is already created but a compliment requires editorial skill to formulate. It's like signing a birthday card versus writing an inscription on the card. My current task is improving the Boeing 747 article, if possible, to the level of some sort of star (GA or something else) but, at least, better than it is. Since each change either requires discussion or should be open to discussion/objections, it takes more time than if I just redid the article and added/threw out portions based on personal whim. Furthermore, personal whim can change an article in one setting but consensus writing requires doing sections at a time. Archtransit (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are my two little concerns:
1. Have you been editing only since Nov. 2006? That's more than enough for an admin but is it enough for a bureaucrat? Maybe?
2. Of more concern is your lack of recent mainspace edits. That may be a personal bias because I like to mainspace edit. I would be happy to see an admin or bureaucrat edit a few (maybe even as few as 2) mainspace edits a few days a week, even to a few articles. That keeps them in touch with the project. That's my new strategy, to work on 1-2 articles at a time.
Good luck! Archtransit (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my first edit was in Nov. 2006 - I remember reading somewhere a saying along the lines of "You should not judge someone who knocks at your door by the distance they have travelled to get there". I think in my time here I've achieved quite a bit - may content writing my not be extensive but I have helped to source a number of articles that would otherwise have been deleted over the months and I have a solid record as an admin. I've also helped out in mediating content disputes between users. Ultimately its for those considering the request to determine whether that's enough. I had been minded to wait longer before asking but I was being asked fairly regularly to consider running - I think pretty much every month for the last 4 - so I decided it was time to lay my cards on the table and ask people to make a decision. If the community decides it is too soon, I will carry on with my work here as before and in the future whether its appropriate for me to ask again.
I do regret that I'm not getting as much content editing done as I used to and I'm hoping to get back to doing some of that in the future. I used to do quite some translation work from the fr.wiki that I'd hope to get back. I think its important that people contribute to their strengths, I'm not a bad writer but I can be a lot more productive in other areas. I will probably be writing quite a bit more around the Christmas period when I'm at my mother's and have access to some pretty decent historical reference books that I can use to expand things. At the moment my involvement in content usually happens when people ask my help on something, I'd certainly like to be more proactive in future. WjBscribe
I am convinced! Your strengths are that you are articulate. I would think that's important as a bureaucrat. My support was added even before your response above. Good luck! Archtransit (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Excuse me for sounding upset, but reading the decline reason it's hard for me to believe that you have even readUser:86.150.128.67's unblock request. It specifically states that
"[...] WP:SOCK#LEGIT has me covered, as I do have another inactive account on Wikipedia - operated from college, albeit completely unrelated to this one, which I intend to limit to subjects such as Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse, in order to avoid personal identification (as in my other account) and visibility of contoversial subjects when editing from college. I have been quite forward about this, and you have been quite unfair in blocking me not once but twice without any justifiable reason. I have a short edit history, and challenge anyone to point to any WP:NPOV infractions, and argue them out with me. If they win the argument (I doubt that they could), then we can argue over whether a 1 year block with absolutely no warning is justified."
Now, given that WP:SOCK#LEGIT does indeed make provisions for exactly this type of case –
"A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, may wish to use an alternate account in order to avoid real-world consequences form their involvement in that area"
– it is very hard for me to understand your decline reason, which incidentally, judging from the talk page of another IP you banned just yesterday, looks very much like a copy-and-paste job. Why would a self-admittedlegit sock puppet, who has made some very valid points in their unblock statement, be declined unblocking on the grounds of being a suspected sock puppet?
I am aware that proper procedure for further contesting this block would be submitting a RFARB. However, in order to submit such a request, all involved parties should be made aware of it in advance. This is currently impossible as there is no way to contact User:86.150.128.67 - they have left no e-mail address nor alternative account name (and leaving one would defeat the purpose of not having it linked to controversial subjects as per WP:SOCK#LEGIT) to be contacted at, and you protected their talk page; also, even if said talk page were unprotected, it is unlikely that User:86.150.128.67 would still be checking it a month after being declined unblocking. As such, I am asking you here to clarify your reason for declining the unblock request instead, as – in the context of the request – your stated reason for declining it does not make any sense to me. Cohen the Bavarian (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have asked me for more explanation before assuming I had not read the unblock request? WP:SOCK#LEGIT only goes so far - that an editor used a sockpuppet to edit controversial topics might be OK but to use them to aggressively push a pro-pedophilia agenda is not. ArbCom have been clear in the past that use of a sockpuppet to push pro-pedophlia POV is unacceptable and in some cases the other account has also been blocked. In any event the IP gave no proof of their claims about another account (which they said was inactive anyway so the combined contribs of the account and IP would still all have been to the one area) and I remained of the belief that they were someone previous blocked for tendentious editing. I hope that this clarifies my reason for declining the unblock request. Given the reasons for Durova's block and ArbCom's wish to have appeals of such blocks refered to them, I'm not sure that it was open to me to unblock the request even had I been minded to. I would also point out that you don't know whether this IP did appeal their block to ArbCom - if they did, it seems the validity of the block was upheld. As administrators have been asked to forward complaints on this matter to the ArbCom list I must ask you to address any further issues you have with the correctness of Durova's block or my decision to decline the unblock request to ArbCom. WjBscribe21:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ban me
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
???? Is this a ploy to get a computer autoblocked, such as a school or two siblings using the same computer and one wanting to tease the other? Or maybe for someone to increase the number of sockpuppets listed under a category of "sockpuppets of Black rhino ranger"? Weird! Archtransit (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Normally vandals are just after the attention, and behaviour like this just re-enforces that belief. Leaving someone that's vandalisng unblocked would be worse, however. --Deskana(talk)23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to change a few things...he's not a handpuppet of Black rhino ranger, he is a sockpuppet of Komodo lover. Big difference. CBFan (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It has been tagged for awhile now, but has not been deleted. Others I have tagged this evening have. This is a blatant "I'm 16 and wanted to create a page about myself" page. Mr Which???06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I'm not sure why people were hesitating over that - "I won a high school wrestling competition" doesn't seem to me an assertion of notability. WjBscribe06:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Do we need some? I've read here, but I was wondering whether there is a time when clerking a request should be discouraged. For example, when a user requests a new username with capital letters in the last name, but have made little or no edits anywhere else. It'd be useful and would most definitely improve clerk-bureaucrat relations. Oh, and by the way since your RFB, the CHU has seen an increased amount of clerking! Best, Rudget.talk17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude here, WJBscribe. As a clerk there myself, I feel it would be appropriate for me to comment here. The changing username guidelines serve a purpose of showing users who are going to request a rename whether there request is likely to be declined or not. An experienced clerk would know that if a user has few contributions, but is requesting a rename to a very similar username to his current choice, that they would not be capable of creating the new account - as the system would not allow it. Probably best to leave these requests be, unless there is a major problem with them. —Qst23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Qst makes good points - WP:CHUG gives a good indication of when renames will and won't be performed at present. In general, user counts aren't going to be that relevant to requests for simple renamings - there was a decision a while ago that any good faith request with a decent reason should be honoured - unless it would be easier for the user to to just create the account themselves. That would mean the present account had no edits the user would want to keep and that the name they want isn't too similar for them to create. I take Rudget's point though that with is instictive to people familiar with the expectations of the bureaucrats isn't going to be obvious to every new person who helpfully offers their time in assisting with the management of those pages. Perhaps it might be worth updating Wikipedia:Changing username/Clerks to give clerks a little more guidance rather than having them try and guess what's going on and make understandable mistakes. I'll give some thought to a few clarificatory additions. WjBscribe23:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81(C)23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Christmas came early
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The image Image:Wikipedia book.jpg? The original version has been superseded by a (in my opinion) not-as-good version. It was apparantly used as a basis for Image:Wp first edition.jpg which is better but not in my opinion an improvement over the original, and is the wrong size also. At any rate the version Image:Wikipedia book.jpg is the one used by almost almost all users, as a check of File Links for the respective images shows.
I would probably restore the original version, but it does not appear to be in the history for some reason and I don't have access to the original file. At the very least Image:Wikipedia book.jpg should be copied over Image:Wp first edition.jpg as the former, in its current state, appears to be a draft.
Even so I don't like the new one as much. The title "WikipediA" is not properly embossed, ahd the legends "the free encyclopedia" and "1937 edition" are removed, without which the joke doesn't work as well. Herostratus (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The image by me was meant only to be a placeholder image to avoid a redlink in the various templates using the image - I was hoping it would be replaced with something better pretty speedily. We could definitely go back to the previous one but its description was "self made, based on free image from Commons", but when I looked on Commons I couldn't find the background image to confirm that it was a free image after an editor challenged this. Ideally I need to know (a) the file name of the image this is based off or (b) that the entire image except for the Wikimedia logo is your own work... WjBscribe23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I thank you very much for nominating me for adminship. I never would have run if you hadn't been the nominator. I had typed up a long response declining the request when I initially decided to answer neutrally. I was anticipating to be severely beat up like all of my Wikifriends had been a long time ago. They probably got shot down for lack of experience. I was also anticipating strong opposition from people who only know me for initially opposing your RfA. Fortunately, User:Orangemike who I knew through WikiProject Wisconsin came up for adminship. I watched his RfA and decided to give it a shot. Thank you for nominating me!Royalbroil02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
request input on slow revert war
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi WJBscribe, I was wondering if I could get you to look into this article. There are multiple reliable sources claiming the arrest was made without a warrant (including RS coverage of eyewitnesses claiming that the arresting officers stated that they had no warrant, and RS coverage in which the Chief of Police states that there was no warrant) The claim that there was no warrant forms a large part of public interest in this case and the Member of Parliament's call for an inquiry into the case. One (or more) editors feel the claim cannot be true, and ought not to be in the article, regardless of what the RS sources say (see also my solicited input from Wikiproject legal here). Here are the reversions in question: by (Equinox137 21 Oct, by IP 70.168.32.250 20 Nov, again by Equinox137 26 Nov.. I'm not sure that the claim that the subject is still a soldier in the unit is entirely accurate, but that's another issue. I think I've said everything to User:Equinox137 about WP:OR and WP:RS that I can. I was wondering if maybe you would be able to have a word with him. Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Er.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
lol. I wouldn't so much call it moving up the ranks - its just a different job. There has been some comment that the name is incongruous with WP:NOT but I think the idea was to name the job something unflattering so it wouldn't sound like something everyone would want to be. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Name change for a recent discussion of the name. WjBscribe10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I just can't resist: "Why do we park on a driveway, and drive on a parkway?" "Why is a shipment done by land vehicles, while cargo travels by boat?" ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold18:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Commons
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJB! I left a note on your commons page, as I noticed your an administrator there, as well. I'd like your opinion on something, when you get some time. :) Ariel♥Gold18:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I replied, did as you suggested, and both images can be deleted. Thanks for such quick attention to this matter! Ariel♥Gold19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJB. Thank you so much for sorting out the checkuser request above. While I've good knowledge of checkuser and IP addresses and stuff, I'm somewhat clueless as to the formatting and the intricacies of the process at WP:RFCU so I as a n00b checkuser, I thought it best to leave it to one of the expert clerks that work so hard over there. Thanks for being patient and sorting it all out :) - Alison❤16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what clerks are here for - not even the experienced checkuser are able to format cases ;). I'll be interested by the result of that check. I've had contact with both editors, I'd always assumed they were friends prone to support each other's positions. The thought of them being the same person had not occured to me. WjBscribe16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That was my take on it as well, but without sysop tools (and with being one of those who reverted his OR) my warnings had no teeth. Thanks for the quick action. Mr Which???18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have reason to believe that this IP talk page, for an obvious sockpuppet of Komodo lover, needs to be protected as he keeps re-posting nonsense. CBFan (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What do you think of this contrib sheet? Given your quick action in a similar situation earlier today, I thought perhaps this might be of interest to you. Let me know if I ask too many questions. I'm a bit new to these kind of calls, so I don't want to clutter the AIV (or whatever other page might be relevant) until I get a real feel for what is actually blockable. Thanks, Mr Which???03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I see they have been blocked by Eliz81 after vandalising an article. I would have been minded to block when you brought them to my attention and I suspect they would have been blocked at AIV at that time. Don't worry about making reports to those places - its not a big deal for admins to decline to block and I suspect your reports will be more sensible than the average :-). I don't mind you asking me questions at all but if I'm not around, you'll be waiting longer for a reply than if you raised it somewhere more active people are checking. WjBscribe10:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, in advance!
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Seeing that it's less than a day until your RfB closes, and the tally stands at 167/2/1 right now, I think it's safe to say you're in the clear! :) Congratulations!!! Don't resign any time soon. :)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I received word that a certain user at this address needed to be fitted out with their bureaucrat uniform. I found this slighty-dusty one in the cupboard which you can have. Although the discussion hasn't finished, time zones dictate that this delivery must be made slightly prematurely.
Yes, congratualtions WJB. You will be an excellent. Bureaucrat. And when it becomes official, I'm sure Secretlondon would appreciate arest! But congratulations. I(talk)14:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Double-congratulations from me as well, now you will have a nice fluffy broom to go along with your mop! You're a wonderful admin, and will be a great bureaucrat! Ariel♥Gold14:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats!
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
It's pretty close, but it looks like you're going to be made a bureaucrat any time soon! I know you'll be one of the best 'crats, who will actually do the work they were promoted to do. You're a hard worker, and this role suits you perfectly. Cheers, 82.19.7.20114:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Seeing someone grow in a just over a year shows you've come a long way. I've only supported once in the RFAs but in your case I have no need to comment seeing it won't matter. Only few people make it as far as you, so I wish you good luck. New York Dreams (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Email
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey WJBscribe, congratulations on (almost) becoming a bureaucrat, it is clearly going to succeed, and I can think of nobody more suited and deserving for the job than you. Also, please check your email account, as there will be one waiting for you in about 15 minutes. Regards, Qst15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments15 people in discussion
It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now a Wikipedia bureaucrat. Your experience and outstanding temperament in engaging the community, doing the kind of work expected of a Wikipedian given trust and responsibility, and the way you conducted yourself in mounting your RfB should serve as an example to those who would like to present themselves to serve the community in the future.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's a copy 'n' paste of the previous post I made. Komodo lover is still posting nonsense on that account, which is pointless. Could I suggest a "protection"? CBFan (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Congratulations on passing your request for bureaucratship, WJBscribe! At 172 supports, your RfB is now the most supported ever. It seems like you're already busy using the bureaucrat tools. :) Also, not only are you the newest bureaucrat, you're the newest bureaucrat by age of account (as your account was created in November 2006). Good luck! Acalamari17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey! I went to do a search on this artist that I'd met in Maryland--He primarily creates video works, and has done a lot of showing--and I discovered that he didn't have an entry. This isn't in and of itself surprising because I've noticed that a)Wikipedia tends to be somewhat lacking in its fine arts information (relatively, say, compared to pop culture such as comics and movies) and b)the definition of notability is quite fluid.
Anyways, I went to create an entry and noticed that someone had already created an entry on Roche, and you had deleted it. I don't want to get into trouble for recreating a page that was deleted, but I do contend that this guy is notable enough for some sort of entry.
Here's some information I dug up (I didn't just jump in here without doing research...Note that I started with his website, which I found at the end of his videos on YouTube and such):
Pitchfork review of "Ultimate Reality" (video by Roche, audio Dan Deacon): [6]
Newer Pitchfork review of "Ultimate Reality": [7]
There is an article on him in Arthur magazine(Note his mention on the cover)
Review of a show by Roche and another artist: [8]
His video for Dan Deacon on YouTube, which has gotten a little over half a million views: [9]
Dan Deacon and Roche mentioned on spin.com [10]
Denzel Washington looking at a handmade book by Roche: [11]
If this isn't enough, let me know...There's a lot out there. I think his collaboration with Dan Deacon, as the video artist of "Ultimate Reality", is really blowing up. I think also that he's done some notable film work. There's also the fact that Dan Deacon and Wham City (the Baltimore arts collective) both have Wiki articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilides (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Its not an area of notability I'm entirely sure how we're applying and as you say the concept is pretty fluid but that seems to me enough non-trivial third party coverage to justify having an article about this person. Looking at the article I deleted (following the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Joe Roche) the only references it cited were Roche's own website and his imdb page. There was very little content so I think you'd be better off writing an article that using what was there before but do go ahead and write it. WjBscribe11:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Username change
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion
Wield us! Wield us!
Congratulations on your most successful RfB. Here are your new tools: the squeegee, sponge and chalk. Sorry for my initial neutral stance, I shouldn't really have let a single, recent, unconfirmed impression I had of your communicability interfere with a hundred other positive impressions I had had for a long time. Again, congrats. Festive regards, Húsönd21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to offer my congrats as well. I initially went with a weak support—but I was swayed by your knowledgeable answers to the questions and by two other 'crats insisting that you were needed. May I just say well earned and deserved. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Well, it got done before I got a chance to !vote. Sigh. I've been asked about the mop, but I'm still undecided - mostly because of the concern you raised about having time to edit. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. It is obvious that you will put the tools to great use, and we are all expectant of your excellent cotnributions as a crat. Regards, and good luck! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I never had a doubt that your nomination would be successful. You do so much good for this project. Royalbroil06:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding personal information of the Meiers
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Alright, regarding that, I do not mind if we agree that the information will not be reintroduced.
I read the policy (after the post) and there are restrictions on "public figures" (I.E. one may not post an address while solely relying on public information provided by states, etc.) WhisperToMe15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I referred to the "Well known public figures" which describes how to handle home addresses of "public figures" - There is such a thing as an involuntary public figure; I have seen second-hand sources (news reports) refer to the street name, but I have not seen any include the house number, so I do not mind if my post is deleted. WhisperToMe15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that the Drews are collectively notable with Meier in that they were the perpetrators of the incident (not people pheripherally involved), AFAIK people accused of crimes (the Drews have not been charged; it seems like they have a similar spotlight to a person charged of a crime/criminal, though) are considered to be "public figure"s and there are some conditions they cannot claim even if they are cleared of crimes. Also, the Drews and the incident are now known throughout the United States (I do not know if the case is that well known outside of the US).
