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.
Please ask for it back. It's self evident why we need your calm collected judgement (and that's nothing to do with the fact that we seem to hold the same "side" terrible word over the current issue at BN). I was clearly mistaken several months ago regarding your actions, and I offer my apologies. Pedro : Chat 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Careful you don't speak too quickly - this may just be part of cunning plan on my part to win you over...
Seriously though, I appreciate the apology. Whilst there were no hard feelings on my part for the comments you made (everyone has a right to an opinion, however unpalatable to others), I did wish that you had discussed what was bothering you with me beforehand.
I will be reviewing things at the end of the month, and will give some thought as to whether I have enough time to spare to become a little more active again. WJBscribe(talk)21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
My thanks for you acceptance of my apology, and your considerable good grace. I was wrong in my opinion, very wrong, and I am more than happy to state so publicly. Again, your calming influence is always appreciated - and if you do have the time to occasionaly use the extra tools then why not regain them? If you don't feel the need then at least one can hope for occasional input when you have time. After all, having solid reasoning is nothing whatsoever to do with holding certain "rights" on a website. Pedro : Chat 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I too would support a restoration of the crat tools to ya... and just think, next time you see somebody who wants a name change, and you wanted to oblige, you'd be able to!---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I *can* forcibly re-crat you, although that would likely be the last crat action I ever do :) -- Avi (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As a fabled god Nike once said, "Just do it" :P....anyways good luck Will, hope you decide to return or atleast "decide" what to cook for dinner tonight O_O and please return soon because all these n00b crats are really starting to scare me ...--Warpath (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting this little doozy. While I'm sure they couldn't find either a ratio or an obiter in the Act, I don't think the EWCA would take the time to point that out in their obiter :p. Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I was curious as to what "this little doozy" was, so I checked it out. I actually think the sentence doesn't make sense the way it has been revised. It starts out with House of Lords and concludes with House of Lords. Personally, I think it should probably be broken into two sentences, but I'm not exactly sure of where or how to do it.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!01:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The language could no doubt be improved (it was late when I looked at it) but at least it now says what Ironholds meant it to... WJBscribe(talk)18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"Welcome back" might not be the exact phrasing I'm looking for, considering that I'm one of the new guys. I am glad to see you picking up the couple extra tools though. I'll try not to pester you too much with questions, but I may have one or two from time to time. Best. ;) — Ched : ? 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Deletion discussions: All XfD discussions (as well as DRV) extended from 5 days to 7 days.
Administrators' noticeboard/3RR: Renamed Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (so it doesn't just cover technical 3RR violations).
Edit filter: Formerly known as "abuse filter" until people started complaining about their edits being labelled "abuse." It checks for certain actions and can disallow, warn, log, tag, etc. Very useful, one of the best MediaWiki Extensions I've seen. If you have at least a basic knowledge of programming, you should give yourself the Edit Filter permission (any admin can, actually) and start working on Special:AbuseFilter.
Requests for adminship: People are now comfortable with a 70-80% discretionary range, rather than 75-80%.
Huggle: This extremely powerful anti-vandalism tool has become quite popular.
A lot of those things (like XfDs taking 7 days and the rise in Huggle use) happened while WJBscribe was still active, though it's never a bad thing to review the updated CSD, even for admins that are still active. EVula// talk // ☯ //04:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:UPDATE gives a month by month overview of some tweaks that happen to various policies and guidelines. I didn't know if it was around when your were more active or not, so thought I'd drop the link. Cheers. — Ched : ? 06:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
WikiThanks Thank you for closing my RFB. I am glad to see you are active again and will be certain to seek yours and other crats advice in learning the ropes. MBisanztalk19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for changing my username -- appreciate it lots! likestolearn 09:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likestolearn (talk • contribs)
Question
How would you suggest handling things like Wikipedia:Changing_username#Amtrak7_.E2.86.92_Train2104. I know one line of thinking is that they have so few edits it is better to tell them to register a new account. But the other line of thinking is that renames don't break anything, so why not just rename it. I see that the page itself equivocates on the matter, so I was looking for your viewpoint. MBisanztalk20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Pls excuse the WP:TPS jumping in here, but Amtrak7 only has one edit (to request this rename) and my view is not to approve these. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, they've made some useful edits now (since you both posted) and seem to have good intentions, so I'd rename them. As to the question if they hadn't made any more edits, then its pure discretion. I doubt any other crat would rename them if you said "no" but I also doubt anyone would object if did rename themo. Sometimes the request itself (or the name they're looking for) gives a good indication of whether they seriously want to contribute to the project. If they do, then renaming them might be a kind thing to do. But it's definitely up to you. "You have to decide what kind of a crat you want to be" kind of thing... ;) WJBscribe(talk)22:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for the advice. Given that we keep seeing report after report about how hard WP is to use for new people and that they can't understand the bureaucratic TLAs we throw at them, I will probably grant these types of requests more often than not, but won't object if other crats deny them. MBisanztalk23:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm just trying to figure out why the Taymaishu RfA is still listed here. It occurs to me that there might be a rule that it has to remain all seven days, even if closed, but that doesn't explain why others, such as kylekieran are removed early. Is it waiting for an automatic update by Soxbot? Is it possible it is supposed to be removed, but hasn't yet?--SPhilbrickT15:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe,
(Note: this is actually a cut and paste from Acalamari's talk page. But perhaps you too can also help me figure this one out)
I'm really puzzled by the wide support at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MacMed. I don't think it makes much sense for me to whine about it on the RfA itself but perhaps you can explain it to me. People routinely oppose candidates who have participated in admin-related areas and have made mistakes. Ok, fair enough. But MacMed has no experience. Not at XfD, not in images, not at AIV, not in any admin area that I can see. He has no real experience in content contribution. No experience with on-wiki conflict. Sure, he recently got superficially involved in MedCab but he's more of a bystander for the moment. People call him clueful and knowledgeable but despite an extensive look at his contribs, I still have no idea how people can make that call with such confidence. Of course, there's no evidence that he's clueless, uncivil and dumb but this is true of most editors and true of most human beings. Are you supporting as a matter of "death to the edit-count"-principle because you know he'll fail anyway? Is he a popular guy on IRC? Did I miss the one area where he has made such a great impression that his inexperience in virtually all admin-areas becomes irrelevant? I'm just baffled. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything particularly significant about MacMed, but there is growing frustration with the current standards at RfA. I have no idea if he even uses IRC (it's somewhere I was reasonably active in the past, but I have no time for it now). I wouldn't quite say that my comment is a protest because he'll fail anyway, though maybe there is a bit of that. I'm just thinking aloud, I wonder what would happen if we promoted less experienced candidates and provided them with support so they could learn on the job. At the moment, I don't think we're promoting even a quarter of the number of admins we should be each month.
All in all I suspect, and on reflection this isn't entirely fair to the candidate, that a lot of support comments simply reflect the reflect this frustration with the current expectations of admin candidates. I decided to comment on RfAs due to close over the next week when I'm away on holiday and won't have much internet access. I fully expected to oppose MacMed, but on reflection wondered what would happen if he passed. My conclusion was that the wiki wouldn't break (which isn't a ringing endorsement really). Hope that helps - I suspect part of the answer to your question is that the support based on more emotional than rational reasons. WJBscribe(talk)22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Like I explained in my oppose (and recently at WT:RFA), I'm equally wary of the current RfA trends given the dwindling admin corps. On the other hand, I still very much believe in the necessity of vetting candidates even if the process is, to put it mildly, not exactly ideal. Regarding your last point, I sometimes think we'd be better off sysoping just about anybody who asks (like we do for rollback) and then get an efficient system for desysoping those who do break the wiki. After all, the overwhelming majority of editors who've been around for 3-4 months with sustained activity consists of decent, dedicated people with no intention of abusing admin tools or breaking the wiki and all in all, I think we'd be better off with an army of admins who mess up in good faith than with our current exclusive club of people who have wiggled their way through the increasingly absurd hurdles of RfA. One might argue that RfA's selectiveness guarantees quality but of course all evidence indicates that this isn't the case: we've routinely sysoped people who eventually went bonkers.
What bothers me about MacMed's RfA is that people are ready to support a candidate that they have no way of evaluating when they regularly shoot down candidates that they can evaluate. It's an absurd way to push back against rising standards at RfA and it's almost an invitation for prospective admins to not get involved in any admin-work before RfA. We're better off defending candidates who, despite an overall positive record and baggage of experience, are being discarded for mistakes or inexperience in this or that admin-area. I tried to do that in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamal N though I kind of lost my cool. A better example is Newyorkbrad's defense of both Chamal N and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3. But backing people we essentially know nothing about? That just seems like a bad idea that could backfire. We have to invite people to act and think responsibly at RfA: do your own research, weigh the pluses and minuses, leave aside personal grudges or wiki-political considerations and tell us if you believe it will do more good than harm to sysop candidate X. But supporting a candidate who has no experience just perpetuates the idea that a good candidate is one that you can't pounce on for this or that screw up. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
ClueBot VI sorts the requests based on the timestamp, which were the same. Because the timestamps were the same, it chose to arbitrarily order them (the sorting algorithm is not a stable sort). -- Cobi(t|c|b)04:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to ping you in case you hadn't noticed my further comments above, not intending to bug you about it, the archive bots screw up my tracking these pages through automated means.--Doug.(talk • contribs)17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled onto [4]. I don't envy you your decision.
One idea I haven't seen raised:
Assuming other issues such as the low-ish approval are not enough to block promotion, give the guy the bit but remind him strongly that many administrative actions require an un-involved admin. Assuming he takes it to heart and interprets this broadly, he would not use his tools on subjects he is involved in, except for issues where "uninvolved" is not a requirement, like blocking repeat vandals, etc.
If you choose not to promote, if he continues good editing and asks for the bit in another year, he will likely get 80%. If he waits another 6 months, he may or may not reach 80%. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I was really surprised, when I sat down and really examined the RFA, I found this:
After reading the same conclusion, in 17 different variations, I too, was under the mistaken impression that most of the edits in the RFA were old. That is clearly not the case.
I want to bring this up to all of the other Bureaucrats who repeated this same mistake, but I fear that it will look bad. So I will just hope they all read that talk page section.
The Transhumanist has continued his disruptive moves, making double moves so that he cannot simply be reverted, despite the central issue not being resolved at WT:OUTLINE or elsewhere. He has also accused me and other editors of libel, without support, and misrepresented article history, the comments of others, and his own actions. This has gone on too long and he has had multiple warnings from those involved, uninvolved and admins. I ask that you take some action against him to prevent further disruption and until he removes his accusations of libel from his talk page. I have mentioned this to two other admins, but I would appreciate an uninvolved opinion. Verbalchat05:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that Spartaz has blocked. I agree that the use of two stage page moves to try and force through changes is inappropriate and have said as much. I think RfC/Outlines is becoming overdue. WJBscribe(talk)13:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. People have asked me to do this now, though I thought someone else was! I'm busy until Thursday though, and have never done this before. Any help appreciated. Also, the contested page was restored, yet it has become detached from its talk page (Talk:Outline of drawing topics and Talk:List of drawing topics I think). I'd normally attempt to fix, but I'm not sure if it needs an admin and I also don't want to make any moves that can be seen as disruptive (if you'll pardon the pun). I have to go and teach for two hours now and then try to catch a train, unless they're still on strike ... Thanks Verbalchat13:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled on this mess this morning while starting to do a couple of CSDs before work. I don't mind having a look over as an uninvolved admin ...... if anyone wishes that is. Khukri16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Verbal himself has his bias that we all don't agree on so I ask that you do not take everything he says for granted. In the future, please read all sides of the argument and form your own opinions before acting. I hope his negative comments about The Transhumanist's actions haven't translated to wrong views on the outline project. Regards -- penubag (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't mean to malign all the editors involved with my criticisms of TT. We should try as best as possible to keep the issues separate, though both need addressing, and TT was the most visible face of the project. I've admitted to recently making a mistake (saying an outline was a list originally, when it wasn't), and that has been corrected to the agreement of all concerned. Verbalchat10:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, me and Bencherlite are working on Inner Temple at the moment; I'll give you a poke in advance of that one being TFA. Vandalism was relatively minor, and there nothing more than a couple of prose changes over the entire day, which I take as affirmation of my work :). Ironholds (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Resysop
[5] A few days on in that discussion, and this is what it looks like. EVula reverses himself, Andre agrees, Kingturtle opines on somewhat separate issues, and many people comment in favor of Secret regaining his tools. The initial "notdone" was in error, because EVula misunderstood the background. He later outlined that himself. Nathan T 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
A project you might be interested in
Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! –Juliancolton | Talk00:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comment on a current RfB is very well taken. I do have one minor issue: Whether you intended it to or not, your second paragraph presupposes that Nihonjoe's stance makes him a problematic choice. If you meant your comment to be neutral, consider rewording it. If you meant to oppose, please do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it does presuppose that - it indicates that one argument would be stronger than another, not that it would be correct. The statement is qualified: "in the view of those opposing ... Nihonjoe is wrong ..." I think that makes the point adequately whether or not the stance is problematic is a matter of opinion. Besides, it does not follow that someone who thinks Nihonjoe's stance is wrong opposes his candidature - there are several supporters who disagree with him on that point. Still, best not to leave ambiguity so I've made this change which I hope clarifies the matter [6]. WJBscribe(talk)18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent statement/rationale... I know how I would close this... but that's not my job and I don't want to influence the decision, but I think you made a great point/observation regardless of how it is closed.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!17:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, must have been the old tool that did it by the last used name (which makes more sense to me as the sig is usually at the end!). WJBscribe(talk)15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit of boilerplate with which I'm contacting the folks most involved in the original discussion. I have no vested interest in the outcome. Hi, it's been nearly three years, but maybe you remember the fuss over the dab page Les Balsiger and the article Les Balsiger (activist). In a nutshell, to the best of my recollection, a college administrator with the same name as an anti-Catholic activist contacted Wikipedia after attempting to disambiguate himself from the activist. The administrator is a fine person, but as-of-yet non-notable.
In what was more-or-less an official Wikimedia Foundation action by User:BradPatrick, who was the foundation's legal counsel at the time, it was determined that a dab page should be created despite the fact that it didn't fit in with MOS:DABRL. Now a user insists that the Les Balsiger (activist) page be redirected to the Les Balsiger dab page. That is the current state of pages. I didn't agree with the initial decision that we needed a dab page, but I wish to uphold the decision made at the Afd. Should we reopen the Afd, or has the issue run its course?
Brad Patrick indicates that he's no longer to be contacted about Wikipedia legal matters, so I will be e-mailing this message to Mike Godwin via info-en at wikimedia dot org.
If the pages are kept in their current state, a history page merge may be in order and/or the talk pages need to be put in the correct places.
I confess that I have little recollection of these matters. Whilst I think I would opt to maintain the status quo were the choice up to me, thereby preventing harm to Mr Balsiger, I do not think my voice should be any louder than that of others. If Mr Godwin offers no opinion as legal counsel, then I think a fresh discussion (it is now 2 1/2 years later) may be appropriate. Consensus can change. WJBscribe(talk)00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that I now have NJA, so I now need moving and have a query/concern about Nja (see here). Hope I'm not too much of a pain in the ... :) NJA(t/c)07:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I realise now after having creating the new account through the ACC tool, and having moved the pages from 247 to NJA, that I might have made it impossible to carry things (ie, my contribs and permissions) over to it. I think the most fatal error may have been the single edit made by the new NJA account? If so, can it be deleted to allow carrying over?
Anyhow, if the case is that I messed it all up, then: 1) that sucks, but it's my fault, and 2) I'd keep the usurpation request and have things moved from this name (247) to (Nja) and then leave (NJA) as a legit sock. If I didn't bung it all up and this name (247) can be moved to the newly created NJA, then wonderful, though I'd still have slight concern over Nja being a valid account in terms of impersonation. Sorry for jumping the gun and I'll hold off doing anything else potentially stupid until I hear from you. Cheers, NJA(t/c)07:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this to your talk. I've replied on the appropriate page and will watch for any notes there. Thanks. NJA(t/c)10:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Mediation in page deletion process
Hi, I would be very grateful if you could take a look at an issue that has arisen with the pages of BeLight Software. An editor has brought the deletion process up but, as far as I can tell, this person is not at all an expert in the Macintosh community and has unwarranted notions about the credibility of sources like MacWorld, MacUser, TopTenReviews, and others and seems that most are closed to talks about bettering the articles, which is suggested on the deletion policy page. It would be great if you could neutrally look at this and decide whether intervention here is necessary. Thanks a lot!
This is one of a several messages left on various user talk pages[7][8][9]. RayJazz21 (talk·contribs) has a WP:COI and is the creator 9 of the 10 articles up for deletion. He also is one account in a larger spam campaign for BeLight Software, see Spam Case. RayJazz21 has been Warned about his COI and yet continues to be excessively active in the discussion and would appear other participants feel they are being badgered by RayJazz21(See edit summary). Would also note there has been an instance of editing the content of others comments during the debate, which is wholey inapropriate. Thanks for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a mediation request. Yes, of course I am active in the discussion. I have not edited the content of others' comments. I did revert one comment that included false information and left an explanation. You yourself changed the phrasing after I pointed this out. RayJazz21 (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The original statement was incorrect since the article in question (BeLight Software) was not created by me. And this calls for misleading remarks about how I "edited" participants' edits? Sorry, isn't the whole editing process about correcting mistakes? RayJazz21 (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a policy against changing the comments of fellow editors in Talks and other non-Articles. Respond, don't edit. If it is your own Talk page, you can choose to delete the comment. --Colfer2 (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Userpation of "Rehman Abubakr" to "Rehman
Hi. Firstly, sorry for bugging on your talkpage too. But these are my current findings:
I can still login to my old account with the same password as the new account. And also perform edits (with both accounts, which is registered under the same email address)...
Thus, the old user still exists. So no one can create a user in that namespace even if they wanted to (no one probably will, but just a point)
So, i mean, is it an error? Shouldnt the old user just vanish like it never existed? I really would like to see that happen. :) Kind regards. Rehman(+)15:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes he has. Thanks anyway. My only trouble currently is that i have three accounts (.az, .de and .nl) stuck (cant unify), of which the password no longer works, (some error). So to usurp, i need to know how to talk on those wikis (language problems). And also, my commons renaming process (Rehman Abubakr to Rehman) also ended up like wikipedia, (i can still login to my old account with the same password as the new account) :). Regards. Rehman(+)14:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I will take a look and try to work out what's going on. Usually though these issues have to be resolved on the project concerned though. WJBscribe(talk)17:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
