User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 18

Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25 Need your assistance Hello WJBscribe. Normally I would go to User:Daniel for this kind of help but since he is on hiatus, and he left you on his list of "helpful ones", I have come to you for help. I do not know if you are familiar with permanently banned User:SEGA? He (and his cast of a thousand socks) was given a community heave-ho quite some time ago. He still filters through with a user account every now and then. His edit habits are very repetative and I believe I have spotted another one. SoonOrSoon (talk · contribs) is (I am almost 100% sure) SEGA under a new name. Like I said, I usually get Daniels help as he knows SEGA well and has assisted me in keeping Wikipedia as "SEGA-free" as possible. If you have some extra time could you investigate my concerns (whether they be right or wrong) Thank you and have a nice day! 156.34.215.138 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I'm looking into this. WjBscribe 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC) A checkuser has confirmed that SoonOrSoon (talk · contribs) is indeed SEGA. I have blocked the account indefinitely along with MatterOfTime (talk · contribs). Don't hesitate to get in touch if you locate another one. WjBscribe 12:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Dennis Oliver article Hello WJBscribe. I really need your assistance. I understand that the article about Dennis Oliver created back in January 2008 was deleted because it was lacking references, which is a reasonable cause. In February 2008 the article was posted again , very well improved with sufficient notable and verifiable references to reliable sources like newspapers proving every single statement noted in the article. The second improved version has also been nominated by editors like "gromlakh" as a good article, and it has been rated as star class and protected by the project. Last April an editor named User:Thiste who is coincidentially involved in the same field as Dennis Oliver ( Fashion), began critizicing the article about Dennis notability. In less than 3 days the article has been unilateral deleted, solely by the admin named User:Pigman As showing in the history of the article, the admin named User:Thatcher immediately restored the article after its revision, clearly stating that the reason why Pigman deleted the article was unjustifiable. But, against after the admin Tatcher restoration, Pigman returned and placed the deletion tag on the head of the article. Pigman is also stating that the links to Dennis Oliver are only showing his name and there are very little comments about him. I am spanish and italian, and after reading all the links to spanish newspapers on Dennis article I can see that there are very good reports about him as an actor an as a assitant director, also in most of the articles is a picture of Dennis!, which clearly shows his acting notability. Furthermore, not every actor is lucky enough to be famous as a Sean Penn or Tom Cruise, but that does not mean that cannot have an article in wikipedia, right?... Wikipedia is not a printed book running out of space that needs to be purged....and Dennis has a reputable career as an actor with important roles on theatrical pieces. In Dennis article every single line is backed up with a link to an external site to prove it, including Dennis website and his listing in the actors database (Imbd). To prove the opposite to Pigman statement who probably does not understand Spanish, I am translating the text of one of the newspapers linked to his article that reads the following and which also includes a huge picture about him: Congratulations to Dennis Oliveras He study acting with Alba Olmos and Gloria Zelaya in a Puerto Rican theater rolling under the direction of Hector Luis Rivera (TEB Theatre) took part in the drama "Amantina or the Story of a desamor." Then, with the same company in the farce "Flemish Twist". Finally "Who is crazy here," under the direction of Otto Montoya. Recently, this boy born in Yauco, Puerto Rico made assistant director Alicia Kaplan in the play "Love and Legacy of Blood" carried scene at the Teatro Natives Queens. The link to the article translated above is: http://dennisoliveraspr.googlepages.com/dennisoliverasdirectorassistant Dear administrator, I do not know to much the way around wikipedia, please help to keep this article and to remove the deletion tag. Thank you very much. The link to Dennis Oliver deletion page is below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dennis_Oliver again: thank you for your helpjustice all the way (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)justice all the way Need a fast username change Given the current situation with Barbara Bauer we need a quick username. A vandal has taken to using her name to vandalize several articles the very first was WP:ANI. The username is of course User:Barbara Bauer. Also it violates WP:Username and it is of a living person and clearly from the accounts edits is not her. The account has been blocked indef as vandal only. Um if you need a username may I suggest User:ANv. Random Choice just based off of first vandalized page. For further WP:ANI#User:Barbara_Bauer Rgoodermote  01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Done. WjBscribe 09:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC) New Project Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active. If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC) User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Poetlister is innocent/Photographs Hi WJBscribe. I appreciate it was a long time ago but if you look at this page you'll see a user has reuploaded a number of photos which you deleted back in May 2007 to Commons and I was hoping you might be able to assist in deciding whether this is appropriate in relation to the reason you deleted them. See here for the deletion log entries where you state that you've deleted them due to false licenses. I understand all these users were apparently involved in some sockpuppetry case which Shalom is now attempting to question. Was there perhaps evidence that these were simply copied of the net somewhere in order to deceive users into thinking the accounts were used by different people. Thanks for your help. Adambro (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC) I deleted the images following checkuser conclusions that those purportedly depicted were in fact only one person. Given that the images had been uploaded to suggest separate people, their descriptions were misleading and there was some suggestion that the image quality was more consistent with them having been taken off the web that being uploads of personal images. I do not recall the images having actually been located on the web - I doubt that happened. I based the deletions on the idea that the images could not be what they purported to be and were therefore falsely licensed or at the very least misleading (not depicting what they claimed to). As I understand it, ArbCom still stands by those checkuser findings and Poetlister has been unblocked for "good behaviour" - she is a user in good standing on other projects, including enquote where she is an admin and bureaucrat. The situation on Commons may be different. One of the problems with the fact that the checkuser results weren't followed up onwiki is that I'm not sure what the "standing" of these accounts is on Commons. If Commons accepts the enwiki checkuser results, then I don't believe these images should stay given their misleading descriptions and the difficulty in investigating the veracity of the licenses. If however Commons doubts those checkuser results, it may be willing to keep those images (though query whether they fall within the scope of commons). As currently uploaded, the images do seem to have a new licensing problem - they give the impression that Shalom is the owner of the images who is releasing them when this is clearly not the case. As a separate issue, they should definitely be deleted if those licenses are not changed. WjBscribe 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Mediation Help Please This dispute seems to span at least 100 articles and on a couple of user's talk pages is probably where it's probably best discussed, but I don't know how to add a mediation request on them. There are a couple of users (User:Yankees10 and User:Chrisjnelson) who have decided in the interest of uniformity to change every NFL player's article from saying "was drafted by..." to "was originally drafted by..." Their intent was to convey that this is where the player's career began. Often when a player moves to another team their article says they "originally came from such and such team and now are at another team". To make all the articles consistent they decided to make every single article say "originally" in them, even the ones who haven't moved to another team. Since doing this they've gotten their articles reverted many times. Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once, when in fact they have not. Or it may imply they've moved on to another team, where in fact many of them have not. Several users feel putting "originally" into an article where it doesn't make sense is wrong, others have pointed out that it's bad grammar. They've gotten into editing wars over it, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week. There has been discussions on both of their user pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees10#Originally_drafted and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally. At first I thought this was kind of a dumb argument, but it has potential to spiral out of control (they've put so much work into changing all the articles that at this point they wouldn't admit they were wrong even if they knew they are) so it would be nice to get some more points of view or have a ruling on it. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC) A mediation case has been started on this topic. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/bjaco18 Hello Will, you might be interested in above RFA.--NAHID 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC) It isn't transcluded, was it ever? Best not to even comment inside RfA's like this. Avruch T 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Peter Damian Hi :-) When you get a chance, could you send your comments and evidence to the ArbCom mailing list (or me) related to Peter Damian situation. Thanks, FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, sorry for the delay. My weekend proved busier than I expected and there is looking back a lot of material I needed to read through to refresh my memory. I should have it ready by the end of the day. WjBscribe 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC) No problem. I figured as much. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Initial forays into CHU Okay, thanks for your notes, both understood and I'll act on them in future. And please don't hesitate to use the trout on me should I foul up.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Well at least I've learned something today... Makes a change...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending MediationBot doesn't seem to be clearing processed requests from the pending-requests holding cell. The two requests currently there should have been moved a while ago: Kolo, I rejected a few days ago (curiously, it's also been added to the rejected cases list, as the link, rather than transclusion); the other, has been rejected, and since deleted. I would empty the pending page myself, but I understand editing that page breaks it. Any ideas? Anthøny 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I think we exaggerate that "editing breaks the page" bit to stop people fiddling with it (or maybe a previous version of the bot was more sensitive). I think you're fine doing any action the bot would do anyway (it doesn't break itself). Let ST47 known what's not working properly so he can fix it when he has a moment. WjBscribe 12:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the reply. I'll ping ST47 shortly. Anthøny 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Update, it appears to be back to its usual obedient self. Anthøny 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC) An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly Greetings! You have expressed an interest in joining in with the next NotTheWikipediaWeekly episode. We now have a confirmed date and time: the episode will take place at Friday, 9 May 2008, at 00.30 (UTC). For that episode in various local times, see here. If you'd like to attend, please "enroll" at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed participants. Please also feel free to browse the suggested topics for this epsiode. We look forward to seeing you on Friday at 00.30! All the best, Anthøny 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 18 2 May 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia  Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA WikiWorld: "World domination"  News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Did You Know ... Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 19 9 May 2008 About the Signpost Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants"  News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST 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. Ralbot (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC) London Meetup Sunday 11th May See you tomorrow then! (Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9) -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Rename Would you please rename per our previous discussion: Setanta747 → Setanta747 (locked). The user should be grabbing the username Setanta747 shortly after this is done. If there is some way to register it for them after the rename is done, that would be nice too... I heard something about a new usergroup for creating usernames on enwiki? I'll leave that for you to do or not as you see fit. Thanks again. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Done. They can recreate the account at their convenience. WjBscribe 19:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 20 12 May 2008 About the Signpost Explicit sexual content draws fire Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia  Foundation receives copyright claim from church Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy  Update on Citizendium Board candidacies open through May 22  Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks  WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton" News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST 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. Ralbot (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Crat noticeboard header I'm curious why you set the z-index in this edit. As it turns out, doing that makes it impossible for me to click to edit the page, using the simple skin. The invisible div containing the shortcut box sits over top of the edit links on the left side of the screen and blocks my mouse clicks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) If it's causing issues, scrap it. I was vaguely thinking that the header could do with being tidied up one of these days anyway. WjBscribe 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Hu12 I have been watching several articles in silence for quite a long while now, and although I am not an editor, nor am I exactly sure how to be one, I must say that Hu12's edits are way out of control. He obviously has some special administrative powers, but he is using them to the detriment of Wikipedia. I often use Wiki to research material and was surprised by what seems to be a level of bias applied by Hu12. Everything appears to be subjective. If he does not like a particular edit for any reason, he seems to react quite quickly in reverting the edit, and if the edit is then re-reverted by another editor, he then calls the person a sockpuppet and blocks them. Not fully knowing what a sockpuppet is, I can fairly well guess at it. I cannot understand why admins are not screened a little more carefully. It seems to me that this particular admin has lost the plot, and I am starting to see some really negative stuff about him on other posts (which appear to be vandalism however) and even on his own talk page. I simply ask that you look into all of his contributions and deletions and spam blocks and general history, to determine if indeed this is someone wikipedia wants as an admin. I have even searched Google and found lots of references to his actions, almost all negative. An admin should be acting by the book, and not write their own set of rules or interpret the rules to suit their style of adminship. Please, seriously consider having a word with Hu12 about this, and see if he should be pulling his head in. It doesn't look good for wikipedia, and I really believe he is now starting to write wikipedia the way HE wants it to be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.142.211 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC) OTRS vs. spam-tracking requirements Hi. I saw your exchange with Hu12. I have some concerns about the whole situation and I have added them to your discussion at: User talk:Hu12#Reverting edits by OTRS agents I would like your input on my proposed compromise. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC) BCBot Hey, yeah, I acted outside my own comfort zone for sure, although it seemed likely that the decision could be easily reversed if necessary. Live and learn I guess. Thanks for notifying me, and please, do keep on keeping me on the straight and narrow. Best, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination) I think you may be missing a word in your comment there. You write "lack of reliable independent sources about the subject, rather than mere passing mentions. Does meet notability standards". I think you mean "does not meet". JoshuaZ (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for pointing that out. Omitting the word "not" does rather change the meaning of a sentence... WjBscribe 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Question re. USURP Hi, Sorry to bug you, but I see you're active and I'd like to get a new wikipedian online if possible! -He registered an account jdzooks -He wants to change name to "Apostropher Royal" -He was originally unable to create that name, because it's too similar to "ApostropherRoyal" - which has never been used at all - is completley empty; no user page, no contribs. -He has just created The Apostropher Royal I advised him to forget that, and go back to his 'real' account (which has a little history, nothing much, but still) - do we still have to do all that stuff about notifying the user, waiting 7 days, etc? Thanks! --  Chzz  ►  01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Re: You are now an administrator (copied over from my talk page:) :Many thanks. I am very grateful. I will certainly be reading the manual and moving cautiously.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Re: Stardoll Hey, thanks for letting me know about the close here. I've just cut-and-pasted to recreate the article; it was entirely new, so no worries about GFDL with it. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Mediation Committee Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek#Coolcat prohibited from mediating “ Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute [...] This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. ” I am open for suggestions on this. Arbcom has proven to be useless in the matter. -- Cat chi? 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC) I could be promoted promptly and then demoted right away. -- Cat chi? 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC) White Cat, that isn't going to happen. We're not going to help you game an arbitration restriction because you don't agree with it. If you want to be allowed to mediate again, you should do so on your credentials and own merits and this would involve hard work in showing the current mediation committee members that you are able to keep your cool in disputes you're involved in and show a demeanor that is expected of a mediator. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) I wasn't talking to you. Please back off of me for a change. You were willing to give the source of this restriction (Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Jack Merridew) a second chance not too long ago, why not me? What have I done to this community to be mistreated so badly. -- Cat chi? 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC) As for "demeanor that is expected of a mediator" I have not forgotten our IRC discussion. Don't you patronize me. Enough is enough. -- Cat chi? 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC) This is precisely the reason why I don't forsee you being accepted to join the mediation committee for a long time. You jump head first into disputes and your attitude in them is often wrong for a perspective mediator. In this situation I was trying to offer you advice - we, as a committee, are not going to promote you so you can have the restriction removed. My above advice still stands - if you want to be allowed to mediate again, work hard in areas such as your demeanor and the way you handle yourself in disputes you're involved in. If you do this, then you may well stand a chance of gaining enough support to join MedCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Membership of MedCom is not within my gift to grant you even were I to think that was a sensible idea. You are of course welcome to apply but should bear in mind that applications opposed by two or more members of the Committee will be unsuccessful. Your sanction makes it rather difficult for you to gain the experience needed to demonstrate sound mediation abilities, though you could consider mediating disputes on other projects where your ArbCom sanctions do not apply should an opportunity arise. I also note that your recent interaction with MedCom members (I am thinking particularly of Daniel, AGK and Ryan Postlethwaite) lead me to suspect you don't exactly have their wholehearted support. I commented on your recent appeal that I thought the sanction could be made more narrow in scope. One avenue you could explore would be to locate a dispute you wanted to mediate that was unconnected to Turkish/Kurdish or "episodes and characters" matters, perhaps by keeping an eye on requests going to MedCab. If you spotted something that interested you, and providing I agreed that the subject matter was sufficiently different from areas where you hold strong opinions, I would be willing to ask ArbCom for you to have a special dispensation to mediate that case. If it went well, that would provide a good footing for suggesting that it is to the project's detriment for you not to be allowed to offer your services as a mediator. WjBscribe 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Grudge Match Hi you said you have restored the grudge match article and yet it still takes me back to a list of teenage mutant ninja turtle episodes which is not what I need (I need the one on a website). I was wondering if you could put it back to the website.Father Time89 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Ok I see what you did, although I was wondering if there was someway I could make a disambiguation page for the term grudge match so that I wouldn't have to manually type it in.Father Time89 (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Wow you're pretty damn fast (seriously I was going to do the same thing but you beat me to it), thanks for the edit.Father Time89 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC) D&D Plant articles Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Re:Server load Thanks for the updated information. In this scenario, what would you suggest for users having their username changed repeatedly? I just asked a user to think about a second rename on WP:CHU on the server load grounds. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you... ...for the fulfilled usurpation. --Fano (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Re. Myanmar to Burma I truly understand your speechlessness, it is no less speechless than mine earlier today when this all started. Nichalp did not follow up the discussion I was having with him. If he had, this would've continued a calm negotiation with no incidents. However, Nichalp never acknowledged what in my view was a blatant, irresponsible mistake. And in the face of that, plus viewing the opinions of other users who denounced Nichalp's actions, plus having requested advice, I decided to revert his move. The fact that Nichalp is a bureaucrat does not allow him to act unilaterally, trample process, and expect his actions to just sit there. I regret that it had to be me to do it, but I cannot just wait eternally for someone else to do it. Yes, I might have used my admin rights inappropriately in order to revert Nichalp. But, in order to revert a much clearer misuse of tools by another admin, I had little choice. Perhaps this is also the first time I use WP:IAR, in order to revert Nichalp's own application of WP:IAR. But I am sorry that I disappointed you. Shouldn't happen too often. :-) Regards, Húsönd 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I will revert my move. I think I did the right thing, but I shall wait for someone else to do it. If nobody does, then I'll come here and tell you that I was right in doing it because nobody else would. But, I will revert it now. I understand your concerns and yes, I acknowledge that I'm not the best person to restore everything like it was. I'm being extremely neutral and just trying to restore things back to process, but given my previous participation in the whole Burma versus Myanmar debate, I understand that my neutral, good faith appealing statements count for naught and I can easily be accused of bias. Furthermore, I cannot bear to disappoint someone. I feared that when I moved the article back to Burma, and now I feel an urge to move it back again. Like the less of two evils. Regards, Húsönd 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Well, I can only see it as a clear sign that this had to be done. Nichalp did something very wrong by going against process, it's just natural that other admins will revert. Frankly, I believe that if Nichalp weren't a bureaucrat, his move would've been reverted much quicker and with less controversy. Húsönd 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Well, he's in the same situation as me, having voiced before for this article to stay at Burma. But, I can totally understand his action regardless of his bias. There was a violation of the process, undoing it should not immediately imply bias. I've been witnessing quite a few situations lately when admins will more rapidly be accused of bias instead of given proper focus on the righteousness of their actions. Too much WP:IAR and too little WP:AGF. Húsönd 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Here's some comments regarding your comments: Nichalp may not be that involved in Burma, but he's not all that unbiased on this kind of issue. If you check this discussion from a long time ago, you'll see that Nichalp supports moving articles according to new names issued by their authorities, such as "Kolkata", which he directly mentions. Burma is also often mentioned in this discussion. Quoting Nichalp, "it would be sheer ignorance on the part of most media publications not to switch over to the new names". If he thinks so of media publications, why would he think differently on Wikipedia? A fairly standard process would have been "a consensus finding discussion on the talkpage", yes. This did not happen. Well, it did, but on a subpage of a talk page. How many interested users were even aware of the existence of that subpage? Well, at least not me, and most likely the majority of interested users. I don't view my action as hypocritical. One thing is to remind Nichalp that he is wheel warring with another admin by acting unilaterally and against process, and another very different thing is to revert such actions. In fact, unless Nichalp reverts himself, there will always be an admin wheel warring with him in order to have this article return to Burma. The focus should be not on who's wheel warring with who, but who did the wrong thing and who's fixing it. I hope MJCdetroit will also self-revert his move. Not because I think he's wrong, but for the sake of peace. But I am rather disturbed at your mention of blocks or requesting an urgent desysopping. I don't think none of us represents a menace to the project nor I think any of us will keep reverting each other. I understand your concern that there was no urgency for the article to be moved back to Burma, but at the same time I have my own concerns that delaying that return could result in the article remaining effectively in Myanmar due to drama, lack of interest at ANI, etc, perpetuating a blatant violation of process. I acknowledge and agree with your bottom line of admin conduct. Regards, Húsönd 03:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I am very disappointed at your comment at ANI comparing my conduct here with Nichalp's, as being far more problematic than his. I was not expecting this. Húsönd 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC) WJBscribe, I do regrettably admit that you have taken me by surprise. You seem to minimize Nichalp's action under every possible perspective, while at the same time appearing to maximize my wrongdoing. I did what I believed was right- fixing a flagrant mistake. But now I'm the bad guy apparently. That's okay I guess. I'm looking forward to participate in your newly created debate once the article is moved back to Burma. After all, there's no need to participate in a process if someone will just decide to scrap it months later. Regards, Húsönd 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) It's 6:00am where I live and I'm very, very sleepy so I'll have to write a proper reply tomorrow. But I must say that the bold type was not meant to be angry shouting, instead emphasis on a particular word in a sentence. I was going to write in CAPS but then I thought that would look like shouting. Apparently I got the same result anyway. Not on purpose. Till tomorrow. Regards, Húsönd 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I concur with Husönd when it comes to the bias of Nichalp, who pretends that "Burma supporters" are more politically motivated than "Myanmar supporters". You do not need to look very far into Nichalp's edit history to realize that he is far from neutral in this discussion.--Amban (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I thought that I'd wake up this morning (afternoon) wishing that I didn't have to return to this but I'm actually feeling very tranquil and looking forward to continue. So, replying to your last comment on my talk page: I sort of disagree with you when you say that there was no abuse of the tools (as if Nichalp's move of a move-protected page, bypassing process and consensus would not constitute a violation). It may not have been a straightforward, intentional abuse of the tools, but what we have in effect is an inadequate application of the admin tools. I'm not sure if the word "abuse" would be the right one to qualify Nichalp's usage of the tools in this situation, but "misuse" I think would qualify well. But, I should stress that I don't think that Nichalp carried out that misuse on purpose. In my view, he was doing what he thought was best, and that's perfectly legitimate. Unfortunately, I think that what he thought was best turned out to be anything but. Your saying that I "will boycott any future consensus finding exercise unless you get your own way now" is once again distorting the situation by making me look like the main disruptor here. I have absolutely no problem with the creation of a new process to determine consensus, and I applaud your initiate. However, I think that I am being very plausible to personally refuse to join a new process when the one we had before has just been destroyed unilaterally. Unless the last process is respected and restored, I cannot find a single reason on why should I or anyone else trust the outcome of a new process. Why do you refer to my view as "getting my own way"? My way is to have consensus and process maintained. That's not just my way, that should be (or used to be) everyone's way on Wikipedia. Why don't you comment on Nichalp getting his own way? Why do you acknowledge that he didn't act the way he should have, while at the same time viewing the natural consequences of his actions as the main root of this whole controversy? You raise some good points, such as that this didn't require an urgent reaction, or that the reverting admins are not uninvolved, etc, but while you assume good faith on Nichalp (as I do), you seem to fail to assume good faith on those who were just fixing what you know was wrong. And I think that's neither the right nor the fair approach. No, I don't think that my behavior on this particular situation provided a good example of an admin's conduct. But, I'm glad that I am still capable of realizing my mistakes on time, and fixing them. Something that I wish I would see more often on Wikipedia. I think I'm seeing all the shades of gray, but you may be right that I'm being quite intransigent. Not because I can't see both sides, but because I think that one side is clearly the righteous. Regardless of my bias on preferring the article to be named Burma, I cannot withdraw and cannot be asked to withdraw my principle that on Wikipedia things can only run smoothly if a user or a group of users will not have the power to make their own rules and act against consensus and process. Wikipedia would collapse in that scenario. We're all unpaid volunteers here, so the least we can expect is that we'll work together as a community. We're hold together by community consensus. We function through community consensus. Hopefully we're still not in the times when a user can decide for everyone else. That's what Nichalp did, and all out of honesty you appear to be condoning that. I should end my boring dissertation by adding that last night I reflected on what caused me to revert Nichalp at that particular time, not before and not after. I've reached a conclusion that I can tell you on an e-mail if you're interested. I hope that none of my words has sounded bitter. I have no anger whatsoever, but as you know things we write will sometimes sound very differently than what they would if spoken instead. I am an extremely calm person by nature and my tone is a bit like the Dalai Lama's (with less charisma). :-) Regards, Húsönd 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Meanwhile, Nichalp's move starts to have expected repercussions: the discussion at WP:ANI has died out and now this. Húsönd 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I just wanted to remark that this episode has reflected embarrassing naivete on your part. To review what's happened, here's the steps that have been laid out for future users to follow: Modify a protected page to reflect your preferred version. Complain that others who edit the page are edit warring/wheel warring. Now that your preferred version is in place, it's time for discussion and a moratorium on further changes. Use the time your preferred version is in place to make it a fait accompli, for instance by propagating changes across the wiki or by establishing your version as a status quo requiring consensus to overturn. I don't believe this is compatible with the principle of consensus as we normally regard it, but we can't expect people to engage in time-consuming and complex discussion when unilateralism is demonstrated to be highly effective. I am troubled by the idea that this way of operating would be established as the standard procedure. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I don't disagree that Nichalp researched the views of other editors. This is exactly why he should have been aware that there was a dispute, that there was no clear consensus on the issue, and that the page was protected from moves. Seeing that you are well aware of the necessity of accepting the "wrong version", I'm disappointed that you are giving Nichalp a free pass for modifying the protected version, by helping to ensure that his change in the face of protection stays in place. Apparently the exception to the protection policy is when an admin feels one side has a "clearer and logical view"? I think that his edits past and present establish that he is not a neutral party in this case, even if he was relatively uninvolved in the actual dispute. For instance this edit takes a very direct stance on the issues at hand, and frankly his statement of why he moved the article isn't the words of a neutral closer of a discussion but of someone who is articulating one of the two viewpoints at hand here: "If the country is officially called by a new name in the English language by its political masters, Wikipedia must reflect it." That statement of opinion is not at all compatible with neutrality in assessing the dispute. I agree with you that getting more users involved is the best hope to get an actual resolution of the issue, but this is not what I am talking about. That discussion will take some time and for now (in a very high profile period) the article needs to be at one location or another. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Typo I figured it is equally courteous to both do this and inform you of it too. Nice name by the way. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you. That typo appears to have gone unnoticed for some time... WjBscribe 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I've been usurped! WJB- My username, Reece, was usurped. I also didn't receive email about the talk request (I have the original mail delivery logs), and I'm not in the habit of checking my talk page. I request that the usurpage be reversed. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Reece (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC) That's odd, your username shouldn't have even qualified for usurp since it had made a past edit. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Bureaucrat discretion was to allow the usurpation even with the one edit: Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Completed/7#Reece_.E2.86.90_Urbane. I do not think it is permissable to de-usurp an account given that the current "Reece" has been using it for a significant period. Daniel (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC) They've only made 15 edits in that time. I don't feel strongly about this, but this strikes me as a bit messed up. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I am sorry that you didn't receive an email relating to this matter. From the archive entry that Daniel linked to, it seems that I checked for whether an email address was enable myself. Special:EmailUser isn't 100% foolproof and I am aware of a couple of past occasions when a user has incorrectly been reported to have an email set. Your account was renamed because another user edited using the same username on other projects. Wikipedia's software developers have begun implementing single user login, meaning that the one person gains the rights to use a given name across all Wikimedia projects. The user who now uses your names was highly active (and an administrator) on another project and so had a clear claim to use of the name, whereas you had made little of your account and it had been inactive for some time. I do not think it appropriate to reverse the rename given that it advances the goal of unified accounts across projects. It would also be unfair to the current user of the account name, who has been active since the rename. I would however be willing to rename you to any username that is not currently in use (i.e. one that is not listed at Special:ListUsers. Again, I apologise for the inconvenience. You may of course seek input from other bureaucrats by posting at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard if unhappy with my reply. WjBscribe 00:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC) BAG concerns Per your concerns over my BAG membership, I have create the following templates User:MBisanz/MESSAGES for use in situations where there may be a perception that I am wearing a certain hat, even if I don't intend it to have that perception. MBisanz talk 05:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC) User:Andreasegde This user seems to hold personal grudges. He began attacking me early this month.[1] Told to calm down but continued, calling me a vandal for apparently believing McCartney is dead.[2] I was new to such a long article and misguided by the size tag seen while editing. He and another user corrected me about this two months back. But now Andre is trying to claim the article as seen in the above diffs. He just abuses though I make lots of useful edits. He later called me "very clever, by seeming to be a concerned editor, and does not reply to accusations (not replying in any way at all) but continues to slowly destroy what a lot of people have worked on. It's a clever strategy, albeit very destructive. It's a new form of vandal."[3] I was on vacation when all this happened. User:Betty kerner said that I should be reported here but there are no signs of me trying to damage the article. I was just unaware on how to edit it. This is not only on the Talk but on Paul McCartney too. This was where I expanded a sec using its main article. It was perfectly neutral writing with proper sources[4] But he summarised the sec by an edit summary that I expand on Paul is dead, so I am a vandal.[5] He's also attacked on my talk as "I don't expect a reply from a vandal (who is registered, and gives himself so many awards)".[6] He then tried to provoke another user by calling me "a self-elected vandal, who likes awards, albeit given to himself. What a high-fallutin' dipstick."[7] (About awards, I have actually received all four and can show the diffs; the badges and ribbons are self-awards.) I am now just too intimidated to contact Andreasegde by sending him warning templates. I went to the Icidents noticeboard but the admin there is apparently his friend who points out his achievements! They're worthless if he misbehaves so much. Please block this user or I am leaving Wikipedia out of harassment. I can't tolerate his attacks anymore. Ultra! 16:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC) CHU for Isaac Huml Clearly I'm in a realm of uncertainty here - I have no access to the OTRS ticket for this, and right now I'm seeing someone desperate to change a name (to "whatever I like") on behalf of someone else. I'd appreciate both your action and your advice on how to deal with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Sorted - I've pointed out that a summary of the reason for the rename would be useful for bureaucrats that haven't signed up for OTRS. WjBscribe 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC) WP:SUL The discussion at the bureaucrat notice board seems to have stalled. I believe that this is an issue that requires wide input, and imminently. When SUL moves beyond +sysop only accounts, en.wikipedia (as the largest wikipedia) is likely to receive a disproportinate number of requests at WP:CHU/U. Your thoughts on getting some opinions to derive a consensus on usurption in the event of SUL, and indeed the best venue to reinvigorate the debate (I noted previous stalled discussions across WP), are desired! Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC) At the moment, I am watching the progress of the discussion. My own attempt at gaining community input at Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames also stalled. Should there be little further progress, my intention is to propose an expansion of the usurpation criteria where SUL is concerned and see whether objections are forthcoming. WjBscribe 00:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC) This would be my view as well. In the event of an SUL request greater laxity than current may be given. However exactly how much laxity could do with discussion; although one could argue that the judgement of the individual bureaucrat will be sufficent certain guidelines would seem to be in order for reasons of consistency. Pedro :  Chat  07:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Re: Naming controversy I do believe that this naming controversy needs to be nipped once in for all. Based on the feedback you and the others have given me, please do let me know if you find my proposed solution Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Solutions? suitable to proceed further. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Usurpation Request WJBscribe thank you for taking a look at the request, but with all respect, i believe you forgot to WP:AGF on the case. I have asked during the proccess if someone had any questions or concerns and explained what the intended use of the account is and why i found it useful. I explained that there are a lot of templates/userboxes/scripts stored on userpages but the request was declined only in base of the voting templates (which i added on the userspace after searching and seeing that they were proposed for deletion and removed in the last years, and pointed clearly to the discussion pages to avoid having them recreated in the template space again). I do not see any problem in removing them from userspace too if it is requested, but this does not endorse that there is no legitimate use of that account. In fact, i expected it to be used for other templates/userboxes including those of other users (those that want to add them). I'm sorry that you are unconvinced that this a legitimate use, i've been not very long here -i'm just starting to learn how templates work yet-, and i won't take over templates from other users to illustrate the case. You said that If a template is useful, it belongs in the template namespace, and i agree with you, but a lot of templates / userboxes / scripts are actually stored on userpages and not in the template namespace Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hawaii/Shaka, User:Flaminglawyer/HapValDay!, User:Arknascar44/Love_Cabal/Template, User:UBX, User:js . I have no problem in having that account run by any other user, you can run it yourself if you wish. On the other hand it's possible that i'm wrong and that it's actually not useful at all to have that space, but nobody has given a rationale yet, or explained why templates on the userspace are bad Iunaw 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I remain unsure why a you want these templates located at subpages of User:- rather than in the template space. Having templates in the designated namespace is clearly preferable as they can be used using the code {{Foo}} as opposed to {{user:-/Foo}} - if a template won't survive in the template namespace I don't think it should exist outside it. Userbox migration was a compromise resolution of a particular issue and I don't think the templates you propose are limited to userspace. I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with what you're trying to do and don't think it justifies my allowing you to usurp the account your requested. WjBscribe 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC) This reasoning looks a lot better! I'll make a further immersion in the WP-policy ocean -templates area- before answering, as i was just considering the fact that there are a lot of userspace templates (that gives the impression that unofficial and official templates coexist) and i'm now unsure whether i had a bad idea or not. Thank you! Iunaw 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry if my comment seemed unkind - perhaps assumed you knew more about how templates work than is is the case. The template special is designed to make transclusions easier. So if you don't include the namespace in a transclusion code - {{Foo}} instead of {{User:Foo}} or {{Wikipedia:Foo}}, the software uses the page in the template namespace. The template namespace is thus generally preferred for templates. You are right that some templates nonetheless exist in userspace. This is a consequence of a period of Wikipedia history known as the "userbox wars". Briefly explained, Userboxes were originally in the template namespace. There were two camps - those who believed these had nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia and wanted them deleted, and those who felt they fostered a spirit of community and wanted them kept. The uneasy compromised that resolved this was that most userboxes without a collaborative purpose would be moved to userspace, distinguishing them from templates that had a direct role in creating content. Hence, why most templates used in userspace now exist on various user subpages. I hope that explains why I am uneasy to perform an action that may disturb the status quo in this area. Also, I have a general unwillingness to rename accounts to usernames that will not be used to actually edit the project. WjBscribe 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Commons I see you haven't logged into Commons since the 19th, so you probably haven't read the message that I left. You can disregard my question because someone answered it, but how do I request an exception to only uploading 24 pix in one hour? I was on a roll last night until I hit that speed bump. APK yada yada 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC) I wasn't aware that there was such an limit on uploads - not sure it's particularly helpful. I'll look into it. WjBscribe 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Ok, thanks. APK yada yada 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Commons II Hi WJB, I've noticed that several M. Lucas images have been tagged as missing sources [8]. I was unable to readd the info in as it's currently protected. Solinkov (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Nice Thanks for being on time to close Gwen Gale's RfA. I'm glad I didn't have to play a game of "find a bureaucrat" today. :) Acalamari 23:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC) No problem - I remember when I used to have to play that game often. I would have been able to close Sp1's RfA on time if not for my home internet being down for 7 hours! I especially chose the viewing of the new Indiana Jones film I went to so I would be back in time to close it... WjBscribe 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Well timed then. :) In fact, I remembered that you used to contact bureaucrats if you needed them, so I decided to take a leaf out of your book. Hope you had a fun time at the cinema too. Acalamari 23:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Cheers from me too for that! All the best :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Skyelarke / Scott Free Regarding the name change of Scott Free (talk · contribs), there are some related ArbCom restrictions.[9] There should probably be a note added at the ArbCom page, and possibly Talk:John Buscema, which clarifies the name change. Would you like to do it, or shall I go ahead and add something? --Elonka 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Damn, I didn't realise they were under ArbCom restriction. Really should have consulted ArbCom first. Oh well, done now. I'm pretty tired and was hoping to head to bed - just wanted to clear the rename backlog. Would you mind adding notes in the appropriate places? WjBscribe 01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Can and will do! Also, you might want to set Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as a hotbutton on your browser, it'll be easier to scan for these in the future.  :) --Elonka 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks. WjBscribe 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Successful RfAs Hello. I usually see you closing RfAs so I think your a good person to ask this. During your time in closing RfAs as successful or unsuccessful, what is the average percentage of a RfA passing? I have noticed personally that RfAs pass around 70% with a good amount of supporters. I am really curious about this. Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC) RyRy5, I'm going to jump in with some quick statistics. The lowest RFA ever to pass was Carnildo's which was influenced by a pending RFAR iirc. Sceptre's at 72% was the highest fail I could find, but I think higher %s have failed. Other low passes were Krimpet at 67%, ^demon at 63% (was a resysopping), and Danny at 68% (also a resysopping). As a general rule, RFAs under 70% will not succeed, RFAs over 75% almost certainly succeed, and the 5% in between is why folk like WJBscribe are given the crat flag to make the tough calls. I think an average passing rate, if anyone's even compiled it, would be distorted by the significant number of high % historical passes from when the project was smaller and RFA was easier to pass. Of course I'm sure WJBscribe or any of the other active crats can expand further, but I figured I'd jump in with some of the history I am aware of. MBisanz talk 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you, Mbisanz. I was very curious about this. In my personal opinion, I think that 69-70% is the average. But I feel that the # of supports take affect also. --RyRy5 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC) It's hard to judge on percentages alone. The guiding principle by which I operate is that th community generally expects that those with more than 80% will be successfull and that those without 70% will not be. That said, RfA is not purely a vote and much turn on individual circumstances and strength of argument. Statistically, I believe it has been a very long time since someone has failed an RfA with 75% or more of the votes, though I would be hesitant to conclude too much from this fact. There is a spectrum of opinion amongst the Wikipedia community as to how far bureaucrats should be guided by those expressing a given opinion on the outcome of an RfA. Although most bureaucrats are likely to sit towards the middle of that range, I expect there is a certain degree of variation in our thoughts on this matter. WjBscribe 07:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC) JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC) CHU Hi. I see you renamed User: P m kocovski to User:PMK1, but in the process created User:PMK1 (renamed). Shouldn't this be deleted? It doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Thanks. BalkanFever 10:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Hu12 administrator apparent libel and abuse Hello, this is a request to review an apparently libelous and abusive comment made about a living person at the talk page for Mount Hood, done by administrator Hu12. Toward the bottom at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Hood#Climbing_Records--Saffron1x (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) The issue stems from, as you'll see in the article's history section, my interest in adding a simple climbing record listing for Dan Howitt, with the press article references. Hu12's post: After going through the "google results" (a disturbing education of sorts[10]), there appears to be a long line of aliases for Dan Howitt, posting over various websites and forums promoting himself and besmirching the characters of fellow climbers and related. Appears this is an attempt to use wikipedia to import offsite conflicts and further an adjenda. It has been removed. I'd suggest that Dan Howitt read the following, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world and Law Of Unintended ConsequencesHu12 My reply: Please remove Hu12's Libel and Vandalism above and please report this user's abuse to Wikipedia administration. Also, Hu12 of the "google results" you searched most are in support of Dan Howitt, with tons of his official summit photos on Rainier, Adams, Hood, Shasta, and listings of his timing officials. You strangely give weight to the abusive chat-site gossip and unsupported libel, and your own post above is of that nature. Chat-sites with this sort of conduct are sad. I'm reporting your libel and abuse to the wiki administration.--Saffron1x (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Note Hu12 cites a link above as support for his allegations of Dan Howitt. In reading the chat-site thread, and note it's a mere chat-site and has a lot of personal attacks, gossip, unfounded content, libel, etc, you will, nevertheless, find considerable support for Howitt including climbing record photos, timing officials names, etc. Hu12 emphasizes the allegations about the use of aliases, and this is gossip and unsupported. Note: This has already been reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Administrator Hu12 apparent abuse. Please review WP:CANVASS and avoid forum shopping. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) A Little Thank You hey just a quick thanks for sorting out my rename from AceLink to Smiley. Most apreciated Smiley =) (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC) E-mail Hi. I sent you an e-mail recently, don't know if you got it or not. Everyking (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Got it but only just had a chance to read it. I missed those events completely - will look into it and get back to you. WjBscribe 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive45#Isaac_Huml_.E2.86.92_Blocked_vandal_.23.23.23 Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive45#Isaac_Huml_.E2.86.92_Blocked_vandal_.23.23.23... I think "Someone by that name has requested it, as it appears in Google searches, and they don't want people to think it was them" or "It's a person's name, and they have requested that it be renamed. Since they do not own the account, and it is labelled as a sockpuppet, I don't see what the problem is" are reasonable explanation, no? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, on reflection all the info was there you are quite right. WjBscribe 02:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Mediation committee Hi WJB. I am interested in helping out a little more with mediation on Wikipedia. I have informally mediated a few article issues in the past and resolved them amicably, I believe. As there are currently no unassigned mediation requests, I can't take the advice of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Procedure to "show my stuff", and instead offer the work I did with disputing parties on Talk:Dane Rauschenberg as an example. Is the Mediation Committee looking for volunteers, and if so, do you think I might be suitable? Thanks. Neıl 龱 11:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Neil, as you can see, we normally ask users wanting to join the committee to take one of our cases to see how they get on. I honestly don't see this would be a problem for you, but it's still good to see how users get on in the formal mediation enviornment. Are you happy to wait until we have a new case for you to mediate? We do get them rather frequently. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC) After looking at things, I'd certainly accept Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25 Attachment theory when it's over as evidence of your mediation work given we haven't got any cases at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC) You're not WJBscribe!!  :) Thanks Ryan. Seddon has already volunteered on the Attachment theory case, and I don't want to take the work away from him as I believe he's also trying to improve his mediation skills - I'll help out with the Attachment theory case, but yes, when a new case comes up for the Mediation Committee I would be happy to mediate that one - drop me a note on my talk page when a suitable opportunity arises. Neıl 龱 15:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC) John Howard RfM trouble Hello, WJBscribe. Once again I'm trying to encourage editors at the John Howard article to come to mediation due to continued edit wars. However, I'm being antagonised by the comments of an editor uninvolved in this particular content dispute, user:Sarah. Here's the link to the RfM talk page where she has been commenting. There are maybe 10 or 15 editors involved in this dispute, most partook in the edit war. But these comments that attempt to paint me and one other editor as the real problem are affecting the neutral atmosphere of the RfM. Editors waiting to get started on an RfM are in the perfect place for anyone who wanted to influence their perceptions of the dispute, but I don't think this sort of activity should be allowed on the RfM pages. Sincere regards, Lester 11:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC) WP:CHU Oh, yeah. I completely forgot about that detail in the software. Thanks for refreshing my memory and I'll keep that in mind in the future. Useight (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Username Change This morning you renamed a user and know there are a few more requests. I was wondering if you could attend to them? SimpsonsFan08 talk Sign Here Please and get Award 12:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Those pages are likely to be pretty busy at the moment. There are few bureaucrats tending to them and we'll get to them when we can - unfortunately people will just need to be patient in the meantime. WjBscribe 17:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Usernames with non-Roman letters Was a time that I opposed usernames that used non-Roman alphabets. I felt that this is an English language Wikipedia and the names should reflect that. However, in light of the global accounts, I now support changes such as Tigermighty → כל יכול. I bring this up only because I recall discussing this issue with you a few months ago, and I wanted you to understand the reasoning behind the change in my opinion on this matter. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Fair enough. I agree that where SUL is concerned, these probably should be done. I suggest asking such users to use latin characters in their signatures to help others distinguish them from other users with non-latin names. WjBscribe 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Good idea. Kingturtle (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Changing username Hi WJBscribe. I have a question regarding the namechange process. If I have my name changed, will all my edits be re-attributed to my new account-name? Does this include the images I uploaded and the pages I moved? Cheers, Face 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, all your edits will be re-attributed as well as logged actions such as image uploads and page moves. All your settings in "my preferences" will also remain the same. WjBscribe 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Usurp Request BrianGilliford/TGS First off I'm not sure if this is the right place to respond but I figure its safer than editing the usurp page directly. I'm replying in reponse to your comment on the usurp page regarding my usurp request of the username TGS. It is not me in the german wiki. I actually hadn't realized that person was there until after I submitted the request when I checked into the contribs from other projects. If that has an impact on the request itself I'll understand as I'm not entirely sure how requests involving inter-wiki usernames are dealt with. I apologise again if this isn't the preferred method of replying. I'm at work and wasn't quite sure where to put it. BrianGilliford (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC) The process has begun to unify accounts across the various wikimedia projects. As there is already a user with this name on another project I'm afraid I can't let you have it here, as they will soon get the name on every project automatically. WjBscribe 07:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Two Things First of all, your opinion here would probably be valuable. Secondly, why was this request performed so early? Thanks, seresin ( ¡? ) 07:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I performed the request based on an email I received before I saw the on-wiki request. Per my proposal at WP:BN#Modification of usurpation practice for SUL requests, I am going to start performing usurp requests immediately where it's for SUL compliance provided the target account has no significant edits. I'll take a look at the bot request. WjBscribe 07:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry Obviously I shouldn't have removed the template. My apologies. Spartaz Humbug! 10:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Don't worry about it - no harm done. On reflection, of the things troubling me about that RfA, the removal of the templates comes pretty low on the list. WjBscribe 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Hilarity LOL. Al Tally talk 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Hee Hee Hee! Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Good one. :) Acalamari 21:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC) LOL! I needed that chuckle :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC) WP:BN#Problematic_rename_by_a_steward Just curious, was this resolved in any way? :) -- lucasbfr talk 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC) It will not be possible to reverse that rename until bug #14330 is fixed given that it will require the deletion of a global account. WjBscribe 09:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 21 19 May 2008 About the Signpost Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case Board elections: Voting information, new candidates  Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks WikiWorld: "Hodag"  News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Good article milestone Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 22 26 May 2008 About the Signpost Board elections: Candidate questions Single User Login opt-in for all users  Community-related news sources grow WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"  News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones Wikipedia in the News  Dispatches: Featured sounds Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST 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. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)