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.
On the other hand, the number of admins we have has gone down from 1419 to 1418 during his tenure as a bureaucrat. I know of no other bureaucrat who has a negative record in this area. Please do better in the future WJB. ;) NoSeptember 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's no surprise that you've fixed it already. :) NoSeptember 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Quorum and the RFA
I'm a strong adherent to the idea of many of our mistakes have occurred because we never address the issue of quorum. I can branch out with this criticism a number of ways, but I think one place it is clear is with RFA. Having just been too involved in one of the great knock down shouting matches in recent memory ("Durovagate"), and consequently not following your RfB properly, I'll first congratulate you and then explain what I meant.
The "RFA is broken" phenomenon occurs because 1) "bad" people get promoted, 2) "good" people don't. These are separate matters, as some folks complain because of disappointment, others outrage. No one can fix that, because we will never agree on the bad or the good. However, what I find more common, as an old timer now in the midst of a giant project, is that more and more people are blundering about with their bits. They may be nice, not nice, well intentioned, or shadowy agents of dark powers, for all I know, but when I look at their RFA's, I see that, aside from being recent, they seem to always be sparsely voted.
Badlydrawnjeff and I probably never agreed on a single article. He wanted all of them revived and preserved, and I think all but the most highly polished are wastes of space. I'm an extreme elitist in that regard, and he was an extreme inclusionist. Because he was passionate, he argued his position, generally well, always consistently. He also had nearly a year, it seemed, of demonstrating calm and, when not calm, of staying within the lines proscribed by policy. He always favored more discussion, less bullying. I was surprised at how well he managed to be as passionate as possible and yet stay clear of policy violations. I voted against his first RFA and voted for his second. If you know my deletionism and his inclusionism, you'll see that that really is saying something about how well he impressed me with his character and his restraint. I knew that I was voting for an admin who would oppose me at nearly every turn but agree with me that we work by open rules. However, he had had a year of vociferous argument.
His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening.
On the other hand, I can look over at some recent RFA's that have passed, and they have a total of 34 votes. Such was user:ChrisTheDude. I have no opinion of said dude. He may be the finest admin since Wile E. Heresiarch or Secret London, or he may be as troublesome as Everyking. I don't know. Apparently, no one else did, either. I know he's newish. Because he is new, and because he has done nothing substantial, he has had few views. In other words, he has not, almost de facto, demonstrated sufficient experience with the project due to having done so little to draw comment. RFA as it is now, with no quorum, promotes milquetoasts and the newbie over the passionate, involved, and experienced.
We've all heard the "if I had to go through RFA today, I'd fail" sentiment (or "if you had to go through..."). In fact, ArbCom tacitly acknowledged that when it moved the goalposts on Carnildo. If being active, engaged, and experienced means giant vote totals and being passive, particular, and new means low ones, then the only way to be sure that the same standard is at work throughout is to have some form of quorum.
I feel very uncertain about any admin with 40 votes, total. Such a person may turn out to be fine, but I rather suspect it's easier for the shadowy BADPEOPLE that Durova and others worry about to get themselves to such a position by bland gnomery with low vote counts than it would be if we had quorum.
When I passed, it was 35:1:2, and it was one of the busiest RFA's in ages. If we had a requisite 100 total votes (neutral is not a vote), we might at least be sure to filter out the new users and those who are doing so little as to have gotten no notice.
As an editor who has been here a while, he knew full well that edit warring is unacceptable even if he or she did not violate 3RR
3RR does not empower an editor to revert 3 times
He did not discuss with the "opposing editor" before his 2 of 3 reverts on that page.
I felt that by continuing his reverts he was putting them both in the spot to be blocked, in a sense baiting the "opposing editor", although it most likely wasn't done intentionally.
After assessing the situation, as well as a promise not to edit war, I unblocked Jeffpw.
Actually, I did discuss, and asked him to stop on the talk page, as well as warning him on his own page. This was before my 3rd and final revert, after which I brought it to the 3rr page, thinking I had followed policy. You chose to simply block me without discussion. You also didn't bother removing the autoblock after you finally removed my regular block, resulting in nearly another hour of blockage. Your actions have left a bad taste in my mouth regarding editing here, and I would hope you act with more caution before blocking other users in a similar fashion. Jeffpw15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply to WJBscribe No I did not say or intend to say "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?", I was giving an example of heavy handedness. My actions were not heavy handed, although I agree I could have simply spoken to Jeffpw on the issue, however, it is my position that he had been edit warring on the page even if he full well knew that he shouldn't have. (I apologize for forgetting about the autoblock).
User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has only been an admin for a couple of weeks. If his blocking is out of step with others he should receive guidance from more experienced admins. But I do not think heavy handedness is relative such that as long as someone is being more heavy handed than you you're doing fine. I would hope that the consequences for your block - a lot of angst and nothing positive achieved - would be enough for you too see that blocking was a bad decision. WjBscribe15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Nat, obviously, I didn't know that I had done anything wrong. A simple explanation of the fine points of 3rr would have gone a long way. A simple check of my block log would have shown you I had never been in this position before. You didn't assume any good faith in this situation, and, as I see it, abused your authority. I am through discussing this with you, and as far as I am concerned, this incident is closed. That said, I am currently reviewing my participation on Wikipedia in reaction to your heavy autocratic actions. Jeffpw15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say a few things:
I did not abuse my authority
As a person and an editor that has clearly been here longer then I have (according to wannabe kate: Jeffpw registered in May 2005, and actively editing since October 2006), Jeffpw should have known the fine details of certain policies such as edit warring.
I object to the usage of the term "autocratic" as my actions were clearly not one of an autocrat.
If you feel the need to review your participation on Wikipedia, so be it.
I have checked you block log before I issued the block, and that is why I issued only a 24 hour block, which I believe is standard for edit warring.
As shown here: [1] you did not clearly address the issues that the other editor had brought up. Here's what he had to say in an email to me:
“
I'm just curious - why was I blocked for 3RR, when user Jeffpw reverted my edits three times, without even familiarizing himself with the talk page? I'm not sure if you read the discussion on Jón Þór Birgisson. No one has addressed the fact that their edits violated MOS#Identity, they simply told me to "get over it." I really feel as if I am being ignored and treated unfairly.
Jón Þór Birgisson refers to himself as "gay". MOS#Identity compels us to respect a person's choice of terminology. Yet Jeffpw and other editors reverted my edits in rapid fashion (more than 3 times), adding "openly", despite the fact that adding this word violates MOS#Identity. When I asked these users to address my point that "openly" is a violation of MOS#Identity, I was simply ignored. I feel like no one is addressing my point. It's clear from the edit history that neither Jeffpw nor the other editors even checked the cited source.
Furthermore, please note that I was *not removing sourced material*. I have no idea where Jeffpw is getting this from. I believe that he is completely misunderstanding where I am coming from. Probably because he didn't even bother to read the talk page. If he had, he'd understand what I've been trying to explain for weeks. Also, I have been protecting this article from vandalism for six months now. I can't believe what Jeffpw is trying to accuse me of *without even understanding what I'm trying to say*. --User:X3210
”
Now clearly I've looked at the talk page, and not once before that threat of a block did I see you discussing with him on his concerns. Now that gives me the impression that you did not want to discuss this with him, and that this edit war was going to continue. Your behaviour is not what someone would expect from someone who has edited here for a longtime. I think that the block was necessary and justified, as a method of prevention as well as a wakeup call that you cannot just revert someone or get into an edit war with someone without any attachment of responsibility with your actions. Although you did not break the letter of 3RR, you clearly broke the spirit of the rule. I apologize if this has upset you, but I was clearly justified to block you for something that a long time contributor, such as yourself, should understand and comprehend is inappropriate. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Quelle Suprise! King James is a Queen!
Our dear Haiduc, never a stranger to controversy, recently decided to delve into the wardrobe of the British Monarchy, and what did he discover? King James had more than appreciative eyes for strapping young men! Naturally, Haiduc felt the need to share this news with the community, but instead of being praised for his scholarship, he was reviled. In fact, one rabid heterocentrist even rummaged around in his own wardrobe until he found an old pair of socks to play with. All seemed lost until astute editor Jeffpw noticed some odd postings and did some sleuthing of his own. The socks were uncovered, the Wicked Witch was melted and readers the world over were able to learn that Good King James regularly ordered tube steak from the menu of the day. Thank you, Haiduc! Thank you, Jeff! And let Miss Julie add (for readers who might not know) that tube steak tastes just like chicken!
It's Britney, Bitch!
Well, maybe it's not Miss Thang, herself, but it's the next best thing: Chris Crocker! he stirs up just about as much controversy as his idol does, even here on Wikipedia. Though it's all a bit of a muddle, one of our editors hopes you can drop by the talk page and leave a message of hope for those battling the forces of obstructionism in that little corner of the Wiki World. It is so hard to spread enlightenment. As Miss Parker herself said, "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think".
Game show for nerds
Wallowing in cash from the latest beg-a-thon, the powers-that-be have decided to sponser a little contest here to improve the articles, with a Grand prize of $100. Yeah. Just enough for a Burger King dinner for the family. Still, the thought is nice and the goal is noble, so we should support it. Our little Queer beehive has taken a look at what's on offer, and both the Greek Traditionalists and Daughters of Bilitis are well represented. The ever useful SatyrTN has made a little list, which can be found here (if that malignant bot hasn't archived it already, that is). So find a pal, roll up your sleeves and dive right in. Let's show this Encyclopedia just what Queers with firecrackers up their....err, I mean, let's show the others what we can do.
Jón Þór Birgisson
I can't pronounce his name, but he's awfully cute, he's deliciously foreign, and best of all...he's GAY! But he won't be for long, if certain users have their way. A concerted effort has been under way for a while now, designed to neuter poor Jon (pretend I put a little accent thingy over that O) and make him into a sort of rockin' Ken doll. So please watchlist this hunka man, and keep him queer! If anybody questions you, tell them "Miss Julie sent me".
TranSanta
Everybody loves a sequel
Readers not afflicted with Alzheimer's will remember that last month we had a little story about Alice and her harasser. That proved so popular that we bring you the sequel: Benjiboi and his stalker. After a chance meeting at the Michael Lucas article, this anonymous user took a shine to our Benjiboi, and has been showering him with attention on virtually every board on Wikipedia. Flattered though he is, Benjiboi finds the attention a bit distracting, and administrators have been seeking various remedies for this. It has proven difficult, as the stalker has an IP address that changes quicker than Superman in a telephone booth. So perhaps some of you would like to watchlist Benjiboi's page, and lend a hand if you see some love letters from an 11 digit friend. I was actually thinking we should get Alice's harasser and Benjiboi's stalker together. Then we could have another sequel, sort of like Freddy vs. Jason. Any bets as to who would win??
Not quite the second coming, but special just the same
Let me be the first to give a warm, wet, Love Boat kiss (though not with tongue) to our newest Project members: Jacksinterweb, Cleduc, Pigman, Becksguy and Iamandrewrice. Even in the month of our Saviour's birth, your popping into our Wikipedian lives is a blessed event indeed. As Jesus Himself said, "Live long and prosper". He did say that, didn't he? I think he said it. In any event, if he was standing next to me now, I'm sure he'd say it, and add, "Happy homo editing!"
Battle of the Wikipedia Stars!
Indomitable Ann Bannon is holding her own in Wikipedia's answer to American Idol: The Featured Article candidate list! For four feverish weeks, she has mastered the challenges and not been eliminated from the competition. Drop by the FAC page and show Ann you love her....or give her the hook (I'm not supposed to tell you how to vote). Giving our plucky Ann reason to hope is the recent promotion of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sa-Sc. If Miss Julie has her way, we will have the entire alphabet of Queerdom Featured here on Wikipedia soon! And I would be remiss if I did not give a warm, Lesbian salute to our own Belovedfreak, who showed Wikipedia with But I'm a Cheerleader that even pom poms are no protection from the Love that dare not speak its name, and got a gold star for her efforts.
Climbing the Wikipedia career ladder is User: Tim1965, who has not only written, but is now promoting Reel Affirmations to Good article status. Best of luck, Tim, and remember: there are no small parts, only small actors. We're sure you'll be trading that green circle for a gold star soon (assuming you get the green in the first place!).
Santa's on his gay way!
Santa needs elves
Yes, I know: packages need buying, trees need trimming, egg nog needs drinking. The holidays make many demands on our time. It's ...well, it's a bitch, is what it is. So I wouldn't blame you for skipping this little section and putting off my request until next year. But...think of the children. Our future. They need quality information about the homosexual "lifestyle" if we are to indoctrinate them properly. That's why I am asking you to drop by our Peer review area and give your meaning as to the efforts of your fellow gay Wikipedians. And think: in this season of kindness and good will to all, isn't it nice that I am pointing you to someplace where you can (in a Wikiloving way, of course) rip someone a new asshole? Think about it...and those children with their shiny, bright eyes, thanking you for contributing to their future.
Even more festively, consider joining in on the deletion discussions of our favorite articles. Here you can bandy about such words as "homophobia", "Right-wing Christian agenda" and my personal favorite, "just who do you think you're pushing around?!?!?". If you play your cards right, there might even be an extra present under the tree for you. :-D
Urgent Christmas appeal Tovojolo asked me to ask you to edit Elizabeth Bishop as part of the Collaboration Project. She's an old dead poet (Miss Bishop, not Tovojolo. I've never actually met Tovojolo. She's probably very young and attractive. Maybe somebody should ask if she's single), but she was a flaming homosexual long before most of us had even been conceived, so we owe her some respect. Tovojolo actually asked me for the last newsletter, but Miss Julie forgot. Bad Miss Julie. She was so busy boosting morale it just slipped right by her. Nemissimo, maybe you need to crack that whip again to get Julie back in line.
Surrender, Dorothy!!!!!!! Friend of Dorothy has attracted the attention of a group of....the more senior elements of our gay society. They disagree with our thesis that Saint Judy was the possible source of the term, and demand we change the article to reflect their contention that Dorothy Parker was the origin. The problem is, their source didn't check out. So we agreed to disagree. Well, we at the project did. They got kinda mad at us, said unkind things, and started edit warring. Though they are old, they are certainly quick, and could revert the article faster than my nimble fingers could press the undo button. To quote the divine Miss Parker, every time I saw the article on my watchlist, I thought to myself, "What fresh hell is this?". The page was protected by sympathetic administrators, but keeping an eye on it will keep Dorothy safe from future Wicked Witches of the West or East.
Ambrosia
Our dear Benjiboi has been busy indeed, lately. He recently made fruit salad out of Fruit, turning a once nasty word into a damn good article, and saving it from deletion! Congratulations, Benjiboi! I hear he has turned his attention from fruit to poultry now. Before he is through, he will have turned every major food group gay on Wikipedia!
Christmas came early
Yes, indeed! Valued administrator WJBscribe was raised out of the mire of mid-level management and placed squarely into the Pantheon of Bureaucracy! And Miss Julie is just too proud of him not to mention that he got the most support votes in the history of Wikipedia! Congratulations, WJB! We know you will not prove the Peter Principle correct!
You!
Yes, you! It's you who make this project shine! It's you who make Wikipedia such a valuable resource for all humanity! And it's you who make Miss Julie's dull life just a little bit better. So I want to take this moment to thank each and every one of you for all you do here. Merry Christmas, everybody! Happy Hanukkah! Festive Kwanzaa!Delirious Dong Zhi!Delicious Diwali! And for our oppressed Iranian brothers and sisters, I wish you a safe and joyous Yalda. And if I didn't mention your favorite December holiday, well, it's because I feel it's so special I should just keep it between you and me. Always remember: You light up my life!
May we all have a joyous holiday season, and a safe, healthy, happy and prosperous 2008.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Your Cruise Director know.
AH, I see, it's at the top, I was looking at the bottom of the case page. I've also noticed a lot of users don't transclude their request onto the RFCU page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably the first thing to note is that the community is extremely weary of admin Bots - it seems to be required that someone who ran an admin Bot would also be an admin themselves. Also most of the code for RedirectCleanupBot was written by Eagle 101 not myself. I presume the reason you want a page move Bot to be an admin Bot is that it would block the page move vandal? Unfortunately blocking Bots are some of the most controversial. A page move vandal blocking script was run for some time by Curps (but on his main admin account, not a designated Bot account) which blocked users after a suspect string of page moves and reported it to WP:AN/I for human review. Curps has since left the project but I understand that another admin now runs a blocking script for page moves from their main account, though I shan't name them. So this is being done, albeit not with the same openess that a designated Bot account would provide.
In short, although I think such a Bot is a great idea, I have a lot of doubts that it could pass WP:RFA and if it did I suspect it would need for the operator to be an admin themselves with a pretty perfect reputation. WjBscribe18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China
It seems that Jiang has been editing since the request was filed and was notified. If he were now to say he'd like to participate in mediation it would I accept be ridiculously bureaucratic to refuse to reopen the case. Our experience is that those who don't sign up within the week aren't really interested in mediation, but if he drops me a note saying he just forgot and wants to be involved I'll reopen the case and it can go ahead. WjBscribe16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
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. Ralbot10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Just adding my congrats to one of the existing threads. So glad to have you as a 'crat. I really believe you'll be less of a "number cruncher" and I think that's important. Regards, Mr Which???13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
How could I have not seen your RfB? It would've been a Super Strong Support Good luck with the "Mop+" responsibility. Mbisanz05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just realized you're a crat. Congratulations! I knew you'd be one soon, but not under my radar :). Also, I thought you'd run for ArbCom, you would've been a good contender. Did you at least think about it? - Mtmelendez(Talk)15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; advice?
WJB, thank you very much for defending me here. I feel... distraught about the whole thing and it's good to know people are looking out for me when I'm too busy to promptly do so myself. I don't know how to respond other than to lay out my thought process as best I can remember it so many months ago. It's not really evidence, and I know from my many years of mock trial that someone's statements in their own interest are rarely persuasive, but I can't think of what else to do. Any thoughts?--chaser - t15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJBs. You comments where highly appreciated. I just want you to read my addendum where i explicitly explained my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your mature and balanced administration. It's a difficult tightrope to walk but you negotiated it with aplomb. Alice.S 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:74.200.75.5
Hi I wonder why you unblocked the user, comments that he said was obvious trolling like this
I agree a two week block was too harsh, but we can't endorse that type of behavior in the elections. This is a Secretaccount00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's trolling actually. A lot of good users seem to be concerned that power is being concentrated in the hands of a few people and that some candidates are a bit too "Wiki-establishment" for their tastes. That itsn't an invalid view to express, and I think the voting requirements should have been clearly explained to the IP before they were blocked. If they resumed now they have had it explained to them why they are not allowed to vote, a block might be appropriate. WjBscribe00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought the same thing, WJB. Which is why I left notes on a few users' pages, as the incivility and premature block were both unnecessary, per the blocking policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Just you wait til I have a go at the clerks for not getting to the requests quickly enough ;-). I mean your request was there literally 4 minutes unattended... WjBscribe01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note and for clarifying your position. I'll be honest as yours was quite a late candidacy I hadn't read your question answers and voted based on past interactions and a general belief that you would make a good Arbitrator. It was only on review the page and seeing concerns raised by some of the opposers that I realised I should have been more attentive to your question answers. The issue of privileged discussion is a complex one. On the one hand, discussing behind closed doors matters that could legitimately be shared more openly disenfranchises those not involved in the discussion and may prevent those with relevant information from contributing it. It can create an atmosphere of distrust and fuel conspiracy theories. On the other, there is some information that needs to be kept in safe hands. An extreme example is data covered by the Foundation's non-public data policy which is avalaible only to the most trusted (over 18) editors who have confirmed their identity to the foundation. Such material is apparently regularly discussed on the list and therefore legitimates the restriction of the list's circulation. There may also be information short of that which could be considered best kept confidential in order to encourage people to provide information and for Arbitrators to feel willing to express themselves fully (though that should not extend to attacks being made off-wiki than could not be made on it). Giano, despite his general advocacy of free flowing information, expressed the view that "an Arb has have the discretion of a Catholic priest". He is I think right. Sometimes people must feel able to contribute something to ArbCom that will not be shared with anyone else. Ironically, too much openness can have the uninteneded consequence of stifling the whistleblower...
As a more pragmatic point, you may want to consider that regretably some do not trust their fellow administrators - indeed some discussions suggest there are some who do not even trust all present recipients of the ArbCom mailing list. It may seriously hamper the effectiveness of the Committee if it ceases to receive information because those who should be forwarding it that information do not trust those who will ultimetely receive it. It could also cause an increase in the number of "secret mailing lists" through which this information is disseminated. Which would promote the climate of secrecy and distrust the increased openness was trying to avoid.
Anyway, just things to consider. I am more or less satisfied by your clarification but will let you think further on the issue. I am little concerned that your first opinion on the openness of the list was (to my eyes) a slightly knee-jerk one and doesn't appear fully thought out, which isn't ideal for someone wishing to be appointed to ArbCom. I shall consider my position over the next couple of days with a view towards restoring my support. I remain of the view that you are a talented and effective administrator, I'm just pausing for a little more thought on your suitability to being an arbitrator. WjBscribe18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I really appreciate your position and the time you dedicated to explain it to me. I am satisfied w/ it and will take this opportunity to thank you again for your dedication to this project. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Prolly an odd sort of question
I've been to AN/I and have seen some of the sections listed there. I am thinking I have to preparean AN/I on a user for multiple issues of incivility and personal attacks across a few articles. I was wondering, since you seem to know where all the nifty things are, if you could perhaps point out an exceptionally well-structured AN/I complaint that I could take a look at so as to better craft my own? - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can think of one, but I can give you a few pointers:
Keep the title neutral - people often switch of its titled "Absolutely shocking behaviour by User:X" or "Ban User:X"
Keep it brief an focus on the evidence, people are often put off by very long threads
Present diffs clearly, if you citing an attack use the diff as a quote e.g (from this page):
Explain what action you want but leave the evidence to speak for itself - don't go on for too long about your personal opinions of the person you're complaining about
A favour please. Every answer to a question to 'F' that is not 'contentious' (these all relate to my original concern about pushing of pseudo-scientific views) is preceded by a message such as this. Sometimes accompanied by accusations of bad faith, trolling &c.
Can you ask him to stop this please. I've apologised for the remark quite enough. I am not acting in bad faith. I'm deeply concerned about this individual's involvement in Wikipedia (and now, other administrators). You may dislike my views, but that doesn't mean I am acting in bad faith. I deeply believe this stuff is wrong, need I say any more. I have no personal views about the person involved here, how could I. It's the internet.
Note, the other person involved in this (I never asked her to support me, never met her before) has privately emailed and said she will not get further involved because of the bullying. Please can this stop.
So, can I suggest a deal.
1. I delete all the contentious stuff from the Vote talk page. I remove the questions as a gesture. All the contentious stuff we handle by email. I will send you the diffs, plus analysis around these. And if we could have an email discussion first, so I can be quite sure I trust you. I trust you already in view of some of your remarks, but I like to be sure, apologies for this.
2. FT2 agrees to handle the non-contentious questions (about scientific method, pseudo science &c) in a reasonable way, and stops accusing me of trolling, bad faith &c.
I note that the comment in your diff was written before you were unblocked. I can talk to FT2 and I think your offering to remove some of the stronger allegations from the vote page is a fair compromise and I think FT2 would then be more disposed to deal with the rest of your questions without refering back to the incident. Feel free to email me, I will respond honestly. I don't agree with the comments you have made on the vote talkpage and the way you have pursued that issue, but you are clearly a long term contributor to this project and should not be dismissed as a troll. WjBscribe20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I will remove the lot, and we try to start again. 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)
Which I have done. This refers. I will ask the non-contentious questions again. The contentious ones, we deal with privately. 20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)
Can I suggest you don't? You've already opposed so I see no further need to question the candidate, and considering that you were quite rightly blocked yesterday, I'd suggest that you no longer comment on FT2's candidacy again. Ryan Postlethwaite20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I ask the pseudo-science questions again? I have already deleted the original questions, because of the general mush. And I have a concern about this person (i.e. about the pseudo science) that a whole bunch of people in the community just don't understand. Why this concern? And this strikes me as bullying again. Please stop these questions about legitimate concerns. edward (buckner) (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Check my userpage if you want to know who I am. I can assure you this isn't bullying, just a serious concern that you are harassing FT2. As I said, you've had your say, you've opposed, you're not going to change that vote, so move on. Ryan Postlethwaite20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely cannot believe this. I state my intention to pursue some (non-contentious) questions about scientific method. You tell me to 'move on'. In England this is considered EXTREMELY rude. You threaten me with a block. edward (buckner) (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it bluntly, any further questioning of FT2 is now looking like harassment, you've made your thoughts clear, now it's time to do something constructive and stop this smear campaign. Ryan Postlethwaite21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put anything bluntly. I agreed here to delete all the stuff relating to the contentious questions. As part of that, the original uncontentious questions were deleted. It seems a reasonable solution to put the original questions again, without the mush. This is part of the process. I have worked here for 4 years. edward (buckner) (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure Ryan has the right idea here, and that you should take his warning seriously. Just let it drop all together. 1 != 221:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not dropping anything. Stop this concerted bullying. I've agreed to deal with the 'difficult' questions privately. The ones about scientific method are perfectly legitimate and I want to ask them again. OK? That is the last thing I have to say, except, stop these threats, and stop the bullying. edward (buckner) (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think threatening more blocks here is wise. Dbuckner is not a troll, he is a longstanding solid contributor in good standing. That he may be nursing a grudge from a situation that even FT2 now says would be handled differently isn't that good. But the situation is calming down, and threatening, or even worse issuing, more blocks won't help calm it down. GRBerry21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, Until - that you for your input but I think escalating things is a bad move here. Dbuckner has blanked the controversial comments on the talkpage and I think that should be accepted as genuine gesture of good faith. I would appreciate having your confidence to continue handling this matter, as I feel considerable progress has been made so far. Dbuckner is free to continue to ask questions of FT2 (and I think FT2 would be uncomfortable with him being prohibited from asking questions). Dbuckner is not a troll, he is a longterm contributor who has I think allowed himself to get carried away here. But I think we should be weary of stfling discussion because someone has expressed themselves in a sub-optimal manner. Questions asked of FT2 about scientific method seem to me perfectly reasonable - indeed NPOV vs SPOV seems to be an important issue to many voters. Lets give Dbuckner the benefit of the doubt that I think his contrib history warrants and let this unfortunate episode pass. WjBscribe22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
While initially I think your unblock was a good one, based on Buckner's recent comments I think it is not turning out so well. Based on his recent comments, he appears to have moved his campaign to e-mail, and has "contacted the relevant organisations", whatever that is supposed to mean. I'll keep an eye out, but as my wiki-time is limited I'd appreciate it if you did likewise. >Radiant<22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get things resolved quietly and peacefully - Dbuckner has removed his comments from the vote talkpage in exchange for his questions about scientific method being answered fully, which seems like progress. Where is the comment on contacting the relevant organisations? That's bordering on a legal threat...
The bullying diffs preceed my appearance and also preceed the relevant organizations diff. I emailed him regarding the latter diff. I also have to head out soon. GRBerry22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, well I don't think earlier discussions on this page (while I was away from my computer) will have helped to calm things, but obviously whether or not outside organisations have been contacted is fairly important. If so, this may now be beyond what can be resolved at the Wiki-level and may require Foundation involvement. WjBscribe22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In which case I will shall withdraw my opposition from the elections and pursue this whole thing outside Wikipedia. That seems a fair thing to do. edward (buckner) (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the thread however his email to me makes it clear that he has in fact carried out the threat he claimed to have withdrawn. WjBscribe15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the person you need for advise on rangeblocks - rather outside my technical competence. My advice is to get a checkuser to see whether legitimate users share the range in question and would be affected. You could also ask them to determine the appropriate range via an IP check at WP:RFCU. WjBscribe19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Moneybomb
I re-closed the AFD as "no consensus" because of the negative attention I was getting from established users on my user talk page. Really, there wasn't consensus among established users, and I mistook a couple users as SPAs. There were Ron Paul-supporter SPAs on the AFD, but not as many as I thought when I was going over it and making a decision. You can always re-DRV it, because I'm not sure I should have even closed the AFD in the first place. --Coredesat22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
She has been attempting to force POV into the article on Abraham Lincoln, and has hectored other editors with accusations of policy violations on the talk page, as well as reverting the proper deletion of ELs that pointed to POV-pushing sites. Now she's on User:Rklawton's talk page. I had written a response to her, but I didn't post it, as I figured a better response would be from one of the most respected admins on the project. This edit concerned Lawton--and concerns me as well--but she has done the same type of thing up and down the talkpage. She nearly always finishes her bad faith assumptions with "all the best" or something like that, perhaps assuming that such lingo will insulate her from any policy violations contained therein, but that doesn't change the content of what she's been posting. I appreciate any time you're able to put into reviewing her "contribs" (such as they are) to both the Lincoln talk page and the article proper. Thanks, Mr Which???19:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
"Attempting to force POV" seems a fairly strong accusation- I'm having difficulty seeing anything very problematic from Gwen (who has been editing this project for some time) on the content front. Tempers seem to have gotten a little heated on the talkpage and everyone could probably do with taking a little time out. Perhaps everyone could be persuaded to make use of the dispute resolution process. You for instance might perhaps like to make less use of the phrase "POV-pushing crap" [5][6] which is hardly going to help calm discussion. I think everyone could so with toning the rhetoric down and focusing on the content. WjBscribe22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you have a look at what she's attempting to force into the article? "POV-pushing crap" is admittedly strong wording, but it is entirely accurate. She's trying (against all consensus) to get links to an archive titled "King Lincoln" including essays by completely non-scholarly sources inserted into the article. Anyone who opposes these efforts is "reminded" about various wikipolicy she feels we've violated. She always couches these insulting reminders with "have a nice day"-type platitudes, but they are no less insulting. And I'm not quite sure how Gwen's length of tenure has much to do with her behavior in this case, and I'm surprised that you didn't see how those of us attempting to keep the article free from bias have been attacked and insulted by this editor. Using friendly words at the end of an insulting post doesn't mitigate the insult whatsoever, but thanks for taking a look anway. Regards, Mr Which???01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say her behaviour was fine, but reading throught the relevant talk pages I think everyone could do with toning it down. I don't feel in a position to assess the validity of the link in question and am loathed to ever accuse someone here of "POV pushing", which is a pretty strong claim. I'm sure Gwen thinks she's doing the right thing too. Everyone has expressed themselves a little unwisely and I'd hope everyone might be able to take a step back. For me as someone uninvolved it isn't obvious why everyone is getting so heated over a link. WjBscribe01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that is the problem. As someone who hasn't been subjected to her condescending wikilawyering, you can't understand how patronizing and insulting her wikilawyering becomes. As for the link, it's to the personal page of a Ron Paul publicist, who has an archive he's titled "King Lincoln", that includes non-scholarly essays accusing Lincoln of all matter of atrocities. There are major problems with its inclusion. Mr Which???01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As an non-American I haven't been following every candidate in the US presidential race, but it seems that a lot of drama on WIkipedia at the moment is related to this Ron Paul person. WjBscribe01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Only for the record, that link is to a high traffic website run by the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Lew Rockwell is not a publicist and his website is not a personal page under Wikipedia definitions. The website does support Ron Paul, although I was not thinking about that when I suggested the link be restored (it had been in the ecternal links section of the article for at least many months when it was unilaterally removed without discussion by an editor whose user page has since been blanked due to privacy concerns and who is not active at Abraham Lincoln at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, excuse my still perhaps being nowhere near the ballpark here. But what's the connection between Ron Paul (and his supporters) and criticisms of Abraham Lincoln? WjBscribe01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Paul's a libertarian, and there's a libertarian strain that wishes to discredit Lincoln. Also, there have been some rather vague suspicions expressed at talk that the link was only being included to drive traffic to lewrockwell.com. However, that's not my problem with the link. My problem is that the link points to a site titled "King Lincoln", with only opinion essays on how awful Lincoln was. It's overtly POV, and has no place in an encyclopedic article on Lincoln. There are enough legitimate (and recognized, not self-described) scholars that have published critical interpretations of Lincoln's actions that such rubbish as the "King Lincoln" archive doesn't need advertised through WP's article on him. Mr Which???02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, without expressing a view on POV (I'm still reading through the site) aren't there space issues here? There must be a vast numbers of webpages with essays about Lincoln - positive, negative, indifferent. We simply don't have the space to list all the sites as external links. This particular site, while I can see Gwen's point about the author not being some crank it is surely no more significant than a lot of other essay collectons we do not link. WjBscribe02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This is another argument against inclusion. However, while Lew Rockwell isn't himself a "crank" necessarily, the theories espoused in the opinion essays in his "King Lincoln" archive are fring-ey to say the least. Mr Which???02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Check her talkpage now. She has taken to editing people's comments, replacing them with a bolded note that says "personal attack removed" when no such personal attack was made. I have reverted her edits to the comments, letting her know she's free to remove the comments completely, but she is not free to edit their content. Mr Which???05:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Will. :-) I know you're an admin in Commons too, and I need some advice in that regard. I'm a bit troubled by some going-ons I've witnessed in the last 24 hours, and I'd like to know your take on them. Here in the English Wikipedia we have WP:CANVASS, but I don't know if at Commons there's something similar. The thing is that in the Spanish Wikipedia's Village Pump there has been an announcement of a Spanish wiki admin that is currently undergoing a request for adminship at Commons. I have twice reverted that announcement, but just now I've been told this is common practise in other Wikipedias, so people who know the candidates can go and vote there since people don't tend to know each other at Commons. I don't know if I should leave a comment at the RfA, with a link to the diff at the Spanish wiki and let people make up their own mind whether such an action is canvassing or not, or if maybe I'm just confusing things a little and creating trouble where there is none. Are such announcements allowed, or not? Canvassing applies? Thanks in advance Will ;-) Raystorm(¿Sí?)17:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
PS:I forgot to mention, I'm not aiming for you to take any sort of action. I just wanna know your informed opinion. If you do say it's canvassing, I'll revert the announcement, explain at es:wiki and that'll be the end of the story. Cheers Raystorm(¿Sí?)17:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the canvassing issue has already been raised in the RfA. There seem to be 2 related issues: (1) is this canvassing a problem by the rules of es.wiki and (2) is it a problem as far as Commons is concerned? I cannot comment as to (1) and suggest this is resolved locally, and as to (2) - this will presumably be revealed by the opinions expressed by Commons editors on the RfA now they are aware of the post. I'm not entirely happy with the situation - but lets seen what the Commons commentators make of it... WjBscribe02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it, darn... We do not have a WP:CANVASS equivalent at es:wiki, but perhaps this action could fall under WP:SPAM, I don't know. Depends on the interpretation you give it. However, I guess the relevant issue is if Commons allows it or not. It wouldn't be exactly fair for the rules (not even rules, behavioural guidelines) of en:wiki to take precedence over those of es:wiki... but yeah, I'm not happy with this situation either. I had hoped to prevent it. :-( Thanks for everything Will Raystorm(¿Sí?)11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you very much!!!
Thanks very much for participating in my RfA, which passed 71 - 4 - 3! I appreciate all the comments that were made and will do my best not to let the community down. Who could do otherwise with such a fabulous rainbow-colored mop?!?
Special thanks to <DREAMAFTER> for nominating me out of the blue.
The juxtaposition of my "Thanks" and the previous comment should be noted with a bit of irony, though I'm not the admin in question. I don't think. :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Protection of Template:R-phrase
Hi WJBscribe. I have mentioned your protection of Template:R-phrase on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchim62/Evidence#WJBscribe.27s_protection_of_the_template. I did not ask this earlier (maybe should have), and I don't see a thread where this was asked. It is not that I don't think it should be protected (I have reasons enough for which I think it is correct/good), but for me it is a bit difficult to understand what your reason was to actually protect the template, the remark 'high risk template' is a bit ambiguous. It was under discussion, apparently there were questions about what the templates displayed, but protection would disable uninvolved editors from changing the template (for improvements). Hope you can comment on this. --Dirk BeetstraTC16:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I became aware that the template existed when I read the TfD discussion that was the source of disagreement between Physchim and Hesperian. I was very surprised when I realised it wasn't protected. It is transcluded into hundreds of articles, and into a lot of other templates which are in turn transcluded onto many pages. Vandalism to that template (e.g. adding code for a floating obscene image) would have been reproduced in probably thousands of articles. Given the template is a subtle one, it wouldn't be easy for someone seeing the vandalised article to work out how the vandalism was introduced. The template is therefore in my mind "high risk" because of the amount of vandalism that could be done to the template, see Wikipedia:High-risk templates for the relevant guideline. Although it makes no admins unable to edit the template directly (and admins shouldn't make controversial changes on a protected page), changes could still be requested using the {{Editprotected}} template on the talkpage. Given the amount of conflict changes to this template seem to cause, people having to agree changes on the talkpage doesn't seem to me a bad idea. I hope that clarifies things. I may post to the ArbCom case's evidence page in due course. WjBscribe16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it is in line with my thoughts and feelings about these templates. I've seen similar things in the spam-part of wikipedia. Putting your spam-link onto such a template is a worthy thing, as not many editors are watching them, and it is visible on many pages. I guess some admins should go on a protection spree for all the templates used in {{chembox new}}. May work on that later. I guess it would be good to have a statement on this in the evidence, as the timing of the protection may suggest other reasons as well (though I don't know if I should be solliciting this). Thanks again! --Dirk BeetstraTC16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes - looks like they signed in and made another request [9] which I performed. I've removed the now redundant older request. WjBscribe17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
a new admin is block crazy
What is the process for reviewing an admin? An admin stupidly blocked me. I found out they literally JUST became an admin yesterday. I repeatedly asked/told them to read but instead they blocked me. 70.108.140.158 (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well as you identified, they're new to the job - perhaps ease up on them? Mistakes are only human. I'm not sure that blanking your talkpage and replacing it with this message was the best way to convince everyone that you were acting in good faith. I think its probably best if everyone learns from the incident and moves on - dwelling on it is unlikely to help. WjBscribe01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not dwelling. I 'd just like some 1 2 remind him\her that he needs 2 look carefully. Fresh out the stalls and is block block block block. User:NrDg's problem wasnt about my talk page, it was about the edits to Victoria Beckham. I repeatedly asked User:NrDg to look but instead of doing that User:NrDg kept reverting & then blocked. I clearly stated \id'd the edit: I deleted dbl info-> that personal section was there 2x. Instead of looking,User:NrDg just kept reverting and then blocked me. If u look @ User:NrDg's edits they 're alot of blocks. Look @ nrdg's block log. W/in 24 hrs of being an admin it is block block block block block. I know wiki motto is be bold, but User:NrDg's is being overzealous. nrdg has even said "You're probably much more familiar with how wikipedia works than I am ". User:NrDg's needs guidance.70.108.140.158 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And for mine, too! Alice✉ 07:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
RE: DreamGuy
I hope it is not inappropriate for me to post this here, I certainly don't want to gossip and I'm guessing that the the RfA issue with Elonka is closed (or soon will be) anyway. However, I am in a current dispute with DreamGuy and am preparing an RFC/USER. I have caught him posting apparently intentional falsifications here. I don't want to post on Elonka's RfA page because I don't want it to seem like I'm stalking him. But I thought it was worth notifying somebody in the RfA dispute that that DreamGuy has a history of posting falsifications, rather they stem from an intention to deceive or utter carelessness and disregard for paying attention to the facts (the latter of which, I find hard to believe). Daniel Santos (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the redirect you listed at RfD and that from the usertalk page. Seeing as that was your old account, you could have requested their speedy deletion by adding {{db-u1}} to the pages. WjBscribe00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You linked to the wrong place. Regardless, I have a feeling you didn't read my addendum, which clarified that I don't believe that was what you were doing. I stand by my point, though, that it may have looked bad to some because you have been a strong supporter of Elonka for quite some time. If you're willing to put up with that opposition, and defend your actions (hopefully, beyond your curt statement in response to Johnbod), then fine; that's up to you. (Yes, I know this seems reminiscent of the discussion over whether I should have !voted on Elonka's RfA.) -- tariqabjotu00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the diff was cut off. Nonetheless I had literally minutes before the close of the RfA to get a checkuser to confirm the sockpuppetry - that didn't leave much time for pleasantries. I agree I would need to be uninvolved to close an RfA and never had any intention of closing this one. But exposing the abuse of multiple accounts to try and undermine an RfA candidate is not something that requires impartiality. They were socks and have been shown to be socks. I hope a lesson has been learned by all here. WjBscribe01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that doesn't require impartiality, but one might suggest that you only scrutinized opponents, and not supporters, for sockpuppets because you've been a strong supporter of Elonka. Again, not saying that's what you did. -- tariqabjotu01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Image reverts
I was aware that that I was geting close to 3RR however he was editing out something without consensus and thats clearly vandalism (removing content, despite being told not to and despite being told its against policies). I was actually waiting for you to get the image back in but when you did not, I went ahead and did it myself. What should I have done then, asked you to revert it then instead of doing it myself? --Matt57(talk•contribs)23:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't revert as I don't have an opinion on whether the image should be included or not. I haven't read the discussions in full. Presumably one of the other people who advocated its inclusion on the talkpage would have restored it. But as you both have now reverted 3 times, I could hardly block one party and not even warn the other. Still as you didn't threaten to continue reverting until the page was protected, I think there's a clear difference. WjBscribe00:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I had the same suspicions when I saw their contribs. Good catch. I cant imagine how anyone could create different accounts and do controversial editing like this in the end. --Matt57(talk•contribs)00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
<font=3> Thanks for closing my request for adminship, which passed 62/0/0 yesterday!
I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.
Thanks for the username from Staka2ont to Staka. However, for some reason, when I sign a message on talk pages with --~~~~, my old username shows up. I thought you might know the reason why since you changed my user? I hope you can fix this problem. I'll sign this message with using the tildes for now.. --Staka2ont02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably just that no one has gotten round to it yet - there's a bit of a backlog. I'm just about to rush off to get a train down to Devon - if it isn't closed when I log on this evening, I'll close it myself. WjBscribe10:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
Thank you so much for all your help and support, Will. If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫ This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was 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.
Smile and notification of something you may want to see
Maser(Talk!) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
What is the process for reviewing an admin? An admin stupidly blocked me. I found out they literally JUST became an admin yesterday. I repeatedly asked/told them to read but instead they blocked me. 70.108.140.158 (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well as you identified, they're new to the job - perhaps ease up on them? Mistakes are only human. I'm not sure that blanking your talkpage and replacing it with this message was the best way to convince everyone that you were acting in good faith. I think its probably best if everyone learns from the incident and moves on - dwelling on it is unlikely to help. WjBscribe01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not dwelling. I 'd just like some 1 2 remind him\her that he needs 2 look carefully. Fresh out the stalls and is block block block block. User:NrDg's problem wasnt about my talk page, it was about the edits to Victoria Beckham. I repeatedly asked User:NrDg to look but instead of doing that User:NrDg kept reverting & then blocked. I clearly stated \id'd the edit: I deleted dbl info-> that personal section was there 2x. Instead of looking,User:NrDg just kept reverting and then blocked me. If u look @ User:NrDg's edits they 're alot of blocks. Look @ nrdg's block log. W/in 24 hrs of being an admin it is block block block block block. I know wiki motto is be bold, but User:NrDg's is being overzealous. nrdg has even said "You're probably much more familiar with how wikipedia works than I am ". User:NrDg's needs guidance.70.108.140.158 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While I am of course aware of WP:GHBH, Gentleness does indeed seem to only have made positive, useful contributions to the project. This seems worthy of an unblock, let's AGF for a bit. GlassCobra19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be entirely happy for with an unblock for two main reasons:
I disagree that his edits have all been positive and useful - odd behaviour by that account lead to my looking into it in the firstplace. This [11] edit summary for instance, given that there was long running banter on Wikipedia Review about vandalism having been introduced into articles edited by Durova undetected.
More improtantly I don't know enough about the circumstances of Veesicle's block. It's far from an ordinary one - 4 checkusers (2 current Arbitrators and 2 former ones) signed off the original block [12]. That suggests to me behaviour that went beyond a minor good hand/bad hand issue.
If you're serious about an unblock, I would get in touch with Jpgordon as the original blocking admin and ask if its appropriate for the person behind the Veesicle account to continue editing Wikipedia. WjBscribe00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've blocked this user for 72 hours as they continued to upload copyrighted images without licenses or rationales in spite of your numerous warnings. WjBscribe21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Normally, I'd support the block, since he has ignored my warnings since the first time I approached him. But on this occasion, I'm curious to know why exactly he was blocked. He has only uploaded two new images sine the last time I warned him, and the only thing lacking were rationales (they had sources and template licensing). I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while due to school, but is it a blockable offense nowadays, considering that policies are continually updated, to block a user for failing to use rationals (he probably doesn't know how to use them)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist (talk • contribs) 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
He uploaded more than two, did you check the ones that I deleted? There are two images that merely lacked rationales but a further 5 that had no copyright information at all [13]... WjBscribe12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your link showed that he uploaded only five images after I warned him. I warned him on the 13th, and he uploaded five images after that— two on the 14th and three on the 15th, all of which had proper tags and sources (the html appears beside the images in the link that you gave me). The only thing they lacked were rationales, which he probably doesn't know how to provide. According to Image:Diamondcrimemob.jpg, which I restored, he even tagged the image and requested help with the licensing.
I believe the block to be unjustified. It's probably up by now, but if its not, I'm requesting that he be unblocked. He didn't necessarily follow my suggestion about not uploading any images (after all, I can't control him), but he did make an effort to provide proper source info. Somehow, when you were deleting his images, you stated that they lacked source and copyright info. But as Image:Diamondcrimemob.jpg indicates, that is not entirely the case.
Erm, I'm confused - the page you restored (Image:Diamondcrimemob.jpg) has no license info at all - just the standard "The individual who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website" label. That wasn't a specific tag chosen by him, it is added if someone says they don't know the copyright of the image on the drop down menu on the upload screen. I can't see how selecting that is any better than giving no license at all... Also, you only restored the image description, not the image itself... WjBscribe01:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, while he would usually upload images without tagging it at all, on this occasion he actually made an effort to label it so as to give some indication of its status. You yourself said it: the tag is selected if someone isn't completely sure of the copyright status of the image. You may not see how it is better, but it does make a whole lot of difference between someone who is showing blatant disregard and neglect of the image policies vs. someone who is confused by it and openly express his or her confusion (in legal terms, the latter lacks mens rea).
Also, I know that what I restored was the description only (actually, I never stated I restored an image)...I was interested in the tag and source info, not the image itself. Orane(talk)02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've filed a request for arbitration regarding Defender 911 here. Since you were the admin who tried to get him to stop initially, I listed you as a party ... feel free to comment. Blueboy9623:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thedjatclubrock :)(T/C) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello WJBscribe. I was just wondering that since there hasn't been anymore discussion or even dispute it seems over the title of the article Hunting weapon for months now, that perhaps the request for mediation should be closed. Just a thought.--LWF (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right. I apologise for my part in letting this one go stale. Everyone rather stopped talking and moved on to other things. If people are still interested perhaps it would worth restarting discussions but there isn't much point in keeping a case unedited for months hanging around. WjBscribe01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there's much interest anymore. If people stop like that it either means someone convinced the other, or one or more parties stopped caring. I for my part had gone on vacation, and while I was on vacation the whole thing just died. Thanks for all the help you gave.--LWF (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree - it certainly can't be a "hot issue" anymore seeing as not only had no one edited the mediatioon or chased me up about it, but no one has edited the article itself. WjBscribe02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There was really only one editor that ever seemed to have any issue with the term. He is apparently more involved presently with Twinkle vandalism patrol than with following this topic. I don't think anyone else had any issues with the term. Nonetheless, thanks for your support in taking this on, however. Your volunteering at the time definitely served a good purpose. Yaf (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to mention that I finished improving a tool that complements nicely User:RedirectCleanupBot: see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~schutz/output/brokenredirects.html. It works in a similar way to Special:Brokenredirects, but it runs on the toolserver rather than the main Wikipedia database (on the plus side: there is no caching of the data and the page is updated every 15 minutes or so; on the minus side: the replicated database is sometimes not uptodate). I have just added one more function: it now produces two separate lists, one containing redirects which should be processed by your bot, and the other one containing all redirects that will require manual processing. It's a nice way to let people concentrate on redirects that can not be taken care of automatically, I think. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I could use the help of somebody who I'd think is good at seeing consensus, given the fact that you're a b'crat. I recently closed a discussion as merge. The discussion can be found at Talk:Geisha. Is this the correct consensus? Maser(Talk!)01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Contributors to that discussion weren't very helpful - one group asserts that two separate topics exist, whilst the other claims they are the same. No one seems to cite any reliable sources to support their view, merely claiming they are correct. Those opposing the merger did not really address the question of why the two could not be treated as part of the same article given their close connection. Not an ideal discussion to close but I think it is acceptable to conclude there was a consensus to merge. Those supporting merger were more numerous and those opposing it didn't really address why it would be wrong to treat the two topics (if distinct) side by side - allowing the more sexualised meaning of the US pronounciation to be discussed in context. "They are not the same thing" isn't necessarily a reason to oppose a merge - we often have sections on closely related topics that don't merit a full article. WjBscribe02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That's the rationale I used. I just needed to make sure. :) Oh, and about Defender 911, sorry for opening the discussion regarding unblock. I was trying to assume good faith to a user who I was hoping had changed, even though you gave him plenty of chances and he actually harassed you. Maser(Talk!)02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I never felt harassed by Defender911 - at the time, he seemed willing to agree to clear boundaries and I tried to create a series of proposals that would have allowed him to continue editing. Had I been the only admin involved I probably wouldn't have blocked at the stage he was blocked. I erred on the side that he meant well and the disruption he was causing was accidental, other were less charitable. With a more positive history of contributing he would probably have found more support. Ultimately he was a time sink for a lot of editors with better things to do - once users become a "net minus" to the project, there tends not to be a lot of goodwill remaining. WjBscribe02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
See, I think AGF is an excellent guideline to live by - all editors are human, and as humans, everyone is subject to making mistakes and occasionally use poor judgement - this was something Defender 911 did to assist the community, but in fact ended up harassing. I really don't believe he'll repeat what got him blocked in the first place, because I'm certain the four months he was banned taught him that he has to respect RTV and not go around harassing other users. What do you think? Maser(Talk!)02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the real problem is that Defender 911 is trouble - the admin who stepped up and said "this user should be unblocked" is going out on a limb. There isn't much to reassure them that Defender 911 would keep his word. Past experience has tought most that where a user's contributions where overwhelmingly disruptive the unblocks don't work. That may be not be AGF, but everyone who edits here is only human. My personal experience of Defender 911 does make me reluctant to trust his word - he made a lot of guarantees of better behaviour that he did not keep. I just can't see Wikipedia benefiting from his editing again. I realise you have the best of motives and perhaps the admin community has been a little cynical here but I think most would say their enthusiasm for AGF is tempered by experience.
On a different note, I really don't think its in Defender 911's interests to resume editing by that name. If he started a new account, he would only be detected if he repeated the same behaviour that resulted in his original blocks. A clean slate might be a better idea... WjBscribe02:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I was the one who stepped up and stated that, but I don't believe any editor should take action without community consent. Would me bringing him there for consideration for unblocking hurt my chances at RfA in the future? Maser(Talk!)02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't read minds but I would hope not and think it unlikely. It would be a sad day if someone failed RfA for being too ready to assume good faith. From what I read you remained civil throughout, raised valid points, notified the relevant parties, and respected the outcome. - that seems totally reasonable behaviour to me. I would be disappointed if you found people opposing you simply because you disagreed with them on this issue. WjBscribe02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
D'you know what annoys me? When administrators have reconfirmations or say an answer to an opinion-based question that they disagree with, people come to oppose them for it, simply out of their own opinions. You see, I must admit, I do not always agree with editors, such as User:Daniel in this respect. Even so, though, were he to have a reconfirmation, I'd see the things he's done for the project and decide from there. That's one of the many flaws in the RfA process, I think. Maser(Talk!)00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
We've talked about this page before; I've just noticed that the user who created and updates it, User:Zedkatuf, is the project coordinator. Is there any point having another go at discussing getting rid of this? Compare the article size with the professional telescope I'm off to use in April [[14]]. Chrislintott (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot hostility between both supporters and opposers. I have a feeling an all out flmae war is going to be broken/breaking out. It appears to include Administrators from what I can tell, so I decided to enlist the help of a Bueraucat (Did I spell that correctly?). Just watchlist the page and check it every once in awhile. It seems like several people have strong feelings about the would-be admin, and I just want to be on the safe side. Thanks for reading. :D.
Hello, I hope you remember me. You changed my username as I requested it. But that's not why I'm here.
Considering you was who changed my username, I decided to contact with you about the following situation: I just discovered this new account Tasko 0 which is extremly similar to the one I used before the name change (Tasco 0). I was wondering if you may have created this account to avoid possibles impersonators or similar problems. I am really confused about this.
Also note that the userpage and user talk page redirects to my currents. Reply here, thank you. Tasc0It's a zero!06:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
How very odd. It shouldn't have been possible to create that account given its similarity to Tasco 0 - I will ask around to see if the developers have made any changes to how the software is handling similar usernames at account creation. If you didn't create the account, the fact its pages redirect to yours would appear to be impersonation. I have therefore blocked the account indefinitely. WjBscribe14:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not create that account. The one I did create is Tasco 0 to avoid impersonators, since that was the username I used until the name change.
Indeed, this is very odd. I don't even know why the userpage is a redirect to mine. Keep me posted if you get any news about this. Thank you. Tasc0It's a zero!21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Re this, I'll have to pay better attention to the parameter names for the {{CUU}} template. I wondered why it didn't say I sent I sent an email when the template rendered after I put the email=yes parameter. He got two e-mails. I(talk)23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I should have noticed the word I change to "sent" was "yes". Would have saved me spamming the guy's inbox. Oh well, never mind. Someone should prob look at the code for that template... WjBscribe23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually did the other day, but it didn't make any sense at all to me, I couldn't decipher anything. As a side note, after about how long do you guys want requests that have been decided upon archived? I(talk)23:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I really should prod Voice of All to look at his Bot again but I know he's busy. It should all be automated. It seems to forget to archive "not done" requests though. Those can be archived after 3 or 4 days I think... WjBscribe23:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
