User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 22

Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Polices, not policies To answer your question, "are we really saying that if someone feels such a statement is misleading, they cannot call it rubbish due to our civility policies?" I think you chose the wrong word, but only by one letter. The policies are flawed, no doubt, the civility policy most of all, and their flaws invite misuse. But that is only one part of the picture. Kosebamse (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Rename Was this supposed to happen? :/ Garden. 06:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sort of. It would be better if it didn't, but it can take some time for all contributions to be reallocated following a rename as it's done by the job queue mechanism. The longest I have seen this take was about 48 hours. WJBscribe (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, right then. I'm happy to wait, I just got a little pent up :P Thanks, Garden. 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC) This has happened on another recent case too. Could it be a bug? I've not seen un-transferred contributions on two different accounts at the same time before. Caulde 11:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Actually if it happens to one, it usually happens to several as it's job queue related - if the queue is long, it's likely to affects all renames of people with many edits. If this doesn't resolve in the next day or two, I'll poke a developer. WJBscribe (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC) RE: Adminship? Hi, if you feel that I would do a sufficient job I would be honoured to accept a nomination. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC) OK, I will write up a nomination statement later today and let you know when it's ready to go. WJBscribe (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC) That would be great. Thank you :) ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC) I'd like to add a co-nom if you and the candidate won't object to it. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 23:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Not a problem at all. Sorry about the delay Ameliorate!, I had intended to do this yesterday but something came up. I should have time to write a nomination statement now though... WJBscribe (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the note, I'll get to writing shortly. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Just letting you know that I've accepted the nomination and transcluded the page. Thanks! :) ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Foxy Loxy RfA I would like to respond to your last post in that RfA here, so as not to clog the RfA page with discussion of procedural matters. I agree with your last comment that a crat cannot prevent a candidate from withdrawing an RfA or from starting a new one. However, I still think that the episode with Foxy Loxy's first RfA was handled by the bureaucrats badly, with too hands-off of an approach. I have just re-read the original discussion at the BN noticeboard and checked the history log for the first RfA. First, I think somebody should have pointed out to the candidate the potential pitfalls of closing an RfA and then staring a new one without sufficient time passing. Second, the procedural side of doing that should have been explained to the candidate more clearly, that is, that the only way to do what he wanted was for him to withdraw, for the first RfA to be closed as unsuccessful and then for a new one to be started from scratch. The BN discussion on this issue is pretty confused, with various talk of "reset", whatever that means. Third, the close of the first RfA should have been done by a crat and not by the candidate himself. That is the standard procedure and it should certainly have been followed here. At the very least, after the candiadte closed his RfA with a very weird and confusing closing statement (which was, procedurally, the worst part of this episode, since it really confused and threw a lot of people off, including myself), a crat should have reviewed the closure immediately and modified the closing statement accordingly. The initial closing statement said: "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a restarted request for adminship as per discussion at the beurocrat noticeboard, a new RfA will be opened soon." It did not use either of the two standard formulations ("The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed", or "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship"), and, moreover, used the green, rather than red, background color, that usually indicates a successful RfA. When I first saw it (I did not check then who did the close on the first RfA), it certainly looked very confusing and it looked to me like some new third option for closing an RfA had been invented (I assumed by a crat since I assumed that a crat closed it and wrote a closing statement, since that is what usually happens). I am quite sure that many other people were just as confused as me on what exactly happened here procedurally and many of these problems could have been avoided if one of the crats paid closer attention to how the first RfA was closed. One of the main duties of the bureaucrats is to oversee RfAs and you guys should certainly have excercised a more hands-on approcah here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC) CU clerks Hi, Do you know if users need to have any prerequisites in order to clerk the page? I saw the note Alison left on the talk page, and thought you might know since you're actively editing the page. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Nevermind - Tiptoety walked me through it. -- how do you turn this on 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Acount name change Wow! That was fast. Thank you very much! :) Rsazevedo msg 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) DigitalNinja I see that on October 2 you blocked DigitalNinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for abusive sockpuppets. Would you mind pointing me to who / what the puppets were? The editor is acting very strange and extremely disruptive at Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and the talk pages of the editors involved, making threats against established users, plotting to file checkuser requests[1] and what looks like a bad faith AN/I report. Could you help us figure out what is going on? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) The editor correctly points out (in his odd way) that the sockpuppet things was more than a year ago - I mistakenly thought it was last month. So that part of it is a stale matter. Sorry to cause any confusion. Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I don't have time to look into the current difficulties, but the previous matter is likely of little bearing. The accounts used were IP addresses. Despite the incident, I would be minded to believe that DigitalNinja is acting in good faith and would advise that he be dealt with in a respectful manner. WJBscribe (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. After a bit of hot-headedness he's quickly become contrite, helpful, etc. So...lesson being don't provoke seemingly upset editors? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Hey Hey, I have an important request to make. Is it possible to add this tool in revision history?. For example we have "External tools: Revision history statistics · Revision history search · Page view statistics" can they be checklinks now?. It is quite useful tools in checking dead links and repairing them. I use it quite often and iam sure many other's would want this tool too. Adding it in revision history would make task much easier. Thanks, That is for now. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC) That tool does seem useful but I'm not sure what criteria has been applied in the past for adding such links to the revision history. I suggest you propose this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and see if there is a consensus for the addition. If so, it should be possible for an admin to add it to the appropriate page in the [[Mediawiki:]] namespace. WJBscribe (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Done has you commanded. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Well done Nice work. --John (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Yes; and thanks for the detailed rationale. Let's hope nothing like that incident happens again soon. -- how do you turn this on 02:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC) A Suggestion This may not be the place for this suggestion, but you were helpful in the past. As a relative newcomer, but one who makes a number of footnoted contributions, I find it helpful when editors have a suggestion if they do more than simply tag the page, particularly if some work has gone into the submission. Some editors strive to leave a message on one's talk page, clarifying what's needed. But a small minority are preemptory. They either delete with no explanation, or simply post a template. More manners might encourage more contributors. This is an open community but that does not obviate the need for courtesy. Some editors preface their comments with: 'First, let me thank you for your contributions to wikipedia.' What a difference that single line makes! Sorry for the rant, but a couple of recent encounters have made me conscious of the need for editors to be mindful of submissions made for nothing by thousands of volunteers, and to treat them with respect. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Sadly, reading the comments on your user page today reinforces my point about courtesy. This entire community could do with more of it. My early experiences on wikipedia were fortuitous, because the first folks I met were gracious and helpful, as you were in our communication about a Commons photo issue. I suppose it's the times in which we live, but it does make one wistful for the days of a bit more civility. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I remain available should you need help. I regret that none of us can waive a magic wand and make the place work. No doubt everyone agrees with the theory of civility, but anyone would be lying to say they have never fallen short of an ideal standard. I think it salient that most content contributors have little dealings with the pages of Wikipedia and are largely ignorant of those processes that keep things ticking - I think that is probably for the best. I think along with trying to be as courteous as possible, we should also try and make allowances for people having "off days"... WJBscribe (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Your points are well-taken, especially about rank-and-file wikipedians being in the dark about the behind-the-scenes mechanics that keep this miraculous experiment aloft. I also agree about aiming for the perfect day, but sometimes having an 'off' one. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your reply and take care. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks :) Hi, I would just like to thank you again for nominating me for adminship. I was quite surprised by your offer and even more surprised by the support and trust the community has shown me. I hope I will not let you down and I promise to use the tools to the best of my ability. Thanks again and take care, ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Are you active? Would you please comment on the Bcrat noticeboard, regarding Caspian blue? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Improper? You think their continued personal attacks against me and unauthorized removal of my comments are all okay? I think you do. The activities are all malicious and why can't they just leave me alone? I just made a simple opinion on the opposition and were willing to have a second thought if I could find good rationale for myself supporting or being neutral. I will listen to User:Rlevse's opinion on this because I don't obviously think that you're neutral on this.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) And if Rlevse agrees with WJB...? Would he therefore not be neutral? -- how do you turn this on 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Then I must listen carefully to his opinion, not WJBscribe's. Nevertheless, you know how I think of you.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Caspian, you really need to cool the rhetoric or you may find yourself sitting out a block for disruption. As I see it the matter is closed. If you want to ask Rlevse for his opinion, that's your business. WJBscribe (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Are you threatening me without valid reason and also condoning the personal attacks? I think their unreasonable oppression meets disruption. I did not know that opposers should endure all attacks by supporters. I'm not living in the middle age.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC) You have not been attacked - RfA is not a popularity contest and those opposing are expected to provide valid reasons for doing so. If you are regularly finding yourself in a position where your reasons for opposing are not supported by any other participants in the discussion, you may need to reconsider how you participate in such discussions. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but I could not find any plausible point from your comment. RfA is not popularity contest (of course), and I provide very valid reasons for my stance. They have to think that the reason I'm opposing the candidate is related to the fact that I don't find any valid reason from their "popularity content". Sorry that I did not show some thrust in you, maybe because I have not shared any single point of view with you per User:Gwen Gale, your support for User:Elonka and others. Thank you for your time. Next time, it would be safer if I'd say "support per somebody" or "oppose per somebody" just like stamped rationale.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail? I didn't see any of this until after it'd all happened. If I get this right, Caspian blue opposed that RFA and I still don't quite get it. I have the same question the first respondent to that oppose did - CB was opposing because he already thought the candidate was an admin? I don't get it either. Then there's an attempt to understand the oppose and it appears to me CB took offense to this and his comments being moved to the talk page. I have to agree with the moving of the thread to the talk page. We, we being crats and others who watch the RFA page, are trying to keep the discussions on point and focused to the issues at hand, partly but not solely because that atmosphere is not appropriate and keeps people from applying for adminship, and that thread drifted away from that and gotten hostile, so I feel moving it to the talk page was the correct thing to do. CB, I don't think people were making personal attacks, they were legitimately trying to understand your oppose. Don't forget, these are not the people who run sockfarms against you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I felt sorry that the candidate closed some RM too earlier than I expected but I did not express my complaint because I thought he was an admin. So should I provide all diffs of my experiences with the candidate? I was reluctant to do so because I've felt unpleasant with the fact that supporters've been just untouched or gotton no badgering from opposers for their inadequate stamped rationales. However, opposers should always do some research to convince people for how wrong candidates did in the past. Moreover, the formers have present valid reasons to supporter's inquisitive questions until supporters got suitable answers in their standard. I don't understand why people do not accept the fact that their supporting candidate is not regarded good for somebody. Besides, the barely newbie removed my comment from the page as if he were an bureaucrat. Anyway, I will listen to your advice carefully and would not behave conspicuously for my safety to prevent from getting threatening comments from supporters.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC) This is a better explanation than you gave in the RFA, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Caspian, two things to think about A) difs make a huge difference when opposing... if you can cite specific examples where the candidate acted inappropriately, then people will listen to you... not question you. B) When your rationale is literally the exact same rationale that I (and many others) would use to support people are going to question it. Adminship, IMHO, is not conferred by passing an RfA. One can be an admin through their actions/behavior. Those people who look and act like admins BEFORE their RfA, are the one's that I'm most likely to support and spend the least amount of time reviewing. Thus, without any difs or explanation, your oppose looked like it was looking for a reason to oppose.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Happy WJBscribe/Archive 22's Day! User:WJBscribe/Archive 22 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as WJBscribe/Archive 22's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear WJBscribe/Archive 22! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here. Thanks, kind of you to think of me. WJBscribe (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC) For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Bureaucrat question from another project Hi, Will. I wonder if you would mind answering a question pertaining to another project. As a rather inexperienced bureaucrat on Simple English Wikiquote, I've been asked (by a highly valued editor and administrator) to rename an inactive account which has an obscene name. I started the process but got the message "has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one." I think I should go ahead and do the rename, but am hesitant because I don't know whether there are implications I'm not aware of. What do you think? Coppertwig (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Hi - hope you don't mind my intrusion here. I have some experience with mediawiki, while not necessarily the same as Wikimedia, I think renaming won't matter. Global accounts are simply attached accounts - renaming it will, quite obviously, detach since it's a different username. Especially if the user is inactive, it won't cause the wiki to explode ;) Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC) That shouldn't pose any problem - it used to be the case that local bureaucrats couldn't rename accounts attached to global accounts at all. When it became possible, a warning message was introduced to confirm that's what you want to do. All you really need to do is remind users that they need to create a new global account with their new name. In the case of an abusive username, you needn't worry about it though you should probably inform the person who asked for the rename that it was a global account - so they can ask a steward to lock and hide the global account if they think that's needed. WJBscribe (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much. I went ahead and did the rename. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) AGF ≠ malice Please consider an difficult-to-parse set of issues: Hypothesis: It appears that your point of view is informed by your experience, no less in Wikipedia than in life. It reflects well on such experiences that you seem admirably prepared to bring a generosity of spirit to circumstances you encounter. As a result, disputes which have substance are likely to be treated with the same fine-focus optimism as mere mistakes or misunderstandings may engender. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, I believe your shortened focus missed the point in a minor, easily-forgetable matter.[2] Problem: As you know, you observed: "This all seems fairly ridiculous to me. The way these issues tend to boil over ..." makes three demonstrably false assumptions" (1) that something did "boil over" from a simmering pot, as it were; and (2) that the characteristic display which inspired your comment was an isolated incident; and (3) that Caspian blue's inflammatory rhetoric illustrates something amiss in WP:RfA rather than something dreadfully awry in the scope of disruptive damage Caspian blue contrives again and again and again. I discerned a pattern in this RfA thread -- a strategy which was oddly familiar. I concluded that you were not wrong to be casually dismissive in the RfA context as you perceived it; and yet you and others remain unhelpful in dealing with a kind of pernicious and insidious metastasis which is well illustrated by Caspian blue's trajectory across a range of disputes. Sequelae: After re-visiting the thread which caused a modest observation which I'm trying delicately to dispute, perhaps it will help to compare the pattern of that thread with what has now developed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nihonjoe's bad faith behaviors. This is no isolated incident -- it's just the latest in a series of harms which deserve mitigation. In my view, thoughtful attention needs to be invested in a problem which has passed beyond the "reinventing-the-wheel-again-and-again" scope of WP:ANI and the plethora of dispute resolution processes. I'm persuaded that Caspian blue conduct is purposeful. The to ready use of the term "malicious" has attracted my attention; but perhaps you will see things differently. At a minimum, I urge you to devote closer scrutiny to what this specific editor has done and is likely to continue to do in the future. The history of Caspian blue's contributions causes me to wonder if you may be able to invent a more constructive response than I can manage on my own. My language here is measured, vague, circumspect; but I wonder if Wikipedia might not profit from less circumscribed prose? Wiki-conventions limit what I may post in this venue, but presumably the elected bureaucrats are able to speak with each other in a less constrained words. --Tenmei (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) In regard to my post on the bureaucrat noticeboard, my attention was to express some exasperation that a simple matter - whether or not a threaded discussion was unrelated to he merits of an RfA candidate and should therefore be moved to the talkpage - had reached a stage that it was necessary for an appeal to be made to a bureaucrat. I feel that issues need to be able to sorted more routinely and this was why I expressed my frustration with the process as a whole. It seems understandable that someone might be upset that their comments were moved in this manner, but I did see the issuing of a vandalism warning in the circumstances as unwarranted and said as much. I am aware that there has been problematic conduct by Caspian before and after this incident. I regret that he felt the need to use the language he did in his post relating to Nihonjoe, who I have always seen as a competent and honest administrator. However Caspian's earlier response to me (User talk:WJBscribe#Improper?) made it clear that advice from me would be unwelcome. I felt that there were others more familiar with Caspian's history on this project, and better thought of by him, who would be better placed to talk to him if problems continued. I think you are wise to keep your language measured - vagueness is not I think necessary. The dispute resolution process is available to you. If there is a specific pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed, you might want to consider filing a user conduct RfC. That would seem an effective way of spelling out the actions that cause you concern for the community, giving them a chance to evaluate that information and give feedback. Hopefully an outcome could be reached that would allow everyone to move forwards. WJBscribe (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I appreciate your thoughtful words. I will attempt to be guided by the tone of your comments. In time, we will learn whether this posting demonstrates an ill-considered temerity [3] or a kind of tentative, appropriate courage [4] -- a plausibly useful but still uncertain gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC) User:Tenmei's intention? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks These would be great references for you to understand why Tenmei (talk · contribs) comes to you out of blue: revenge and forum shopping per his usual behaviors.[5][6][7][8] He is a Japanese editor and a friend of some admin in charge of the project who has been disputing with me. The above report by Tenmei is using an ANI report on his freind for his unsolved issue in the past. He was accused for making personal attacks at the AFD by me and an amin two and four months ago respectively. You will see the closing admin's statement and why the ANI reports on him were just archived without any block to him; his unintelligible and lengthy writing. Even though he was warned by several admins.[9][10][11][12] I provide the brief note for the situation. Thanks.--Caspian blue 06:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the background, though I think you could have drawn the threads to my attention without the stream of allegations. I understand from Rlevse that you have been the victim of some harassment but I worry that you seem very willing to ascribe bad intentions to anyone you find yourself in dispute with. It is important that Wikipedia users learn to disagree with themselves in a calm manner that is respectful of differences in opinion. I also think it is important to recognise that people acting from the best of motives can make mistakes. Please have a think about your approach to other editors on this project - I think the tone of recent posts about Nihonjoe were rather unfortunate. If there's someone you trust to give you advice (you have mentioned Rlevse in the past) I suggest you ask them for suggestions as to how you might change your behaviour to avoid these disputes you seem to be finding yourself involved in fairly frequently at present. WJBscribe (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the reply. However, after Tenmei was reported by me for his inappropriate behaviors at the AFD, he has spread unfinished issues to his friends and admins. I get that you regard and support Nihonjoe, however, that evaluation is not for me and Korean editors. I was falsely blocked by the involved admin as the result of our long dispute. That does not a good faith conduct nor proper. Tenmei provided his stance, so did I. It is so amazing that beaters victimize themselves. I don't think my provided info here is a problem. If I need an advice for my behaviors, I will listen to Rleves, and Jehochman or others. I'm sorry that I did not show you my trust before, because I still disagree with your closure of Elonka related threads. All I want fro you is a neutral point of view. Thank you.--Caspian blue 16:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) For context, which Elonka related threads are you saying that I closed? WJBscribe (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Elonka's outing matter.--Caspian blue 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Ah, well (1) your accusations in that matter were absolutely unfounded and outrageous, and (2) given SA's wishes were for his IP data to be removed from Wikipedia, one could hardly have given effect to his wishes without blanking the threads that contained it. The posts remain in page histories. WJBscribe (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC) ?? I did not accuse you for anything, but said I disagree with your support for her. The courtesy blanking at the MfD and RFCU were very good decisions, but her talk page should be blanked as well? There is no reason to. She should remind her outing pointed by many editors. I don't understand why you should be outrageous to me? Please calm down.--Caspian blue 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I am quite calm - I just indicate that the allegations you made of outing were inappropriate. The thread contained the very details that you felt should not have been mentioned - it was blanked for that reason. I had quite forgotten your part in that matter until you reminded me. It seems to be another example of a time when you did not handle a dispute with another editor well. The fact that you are often getting yourself in unnecessarily heated arguments with other users worries me greatly. WJBscribe (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Well, the languages "outrageous" and "unfounded" that you used are quite strong and somewhat offensive. I have to disagree with you again for your evaluation. She was outing, and more than 8 people pointed out on the improper action by her. The talk page did not revel anything about SA's privacy, just arguments over whether her outing is inappropriate or not. ("google him" is really good one? I don't think so) However, you're accusing my involvement in the dispute inappropriate. That is your POV. With our disagreement on same issues, I had to say that you're not a right person to lecture me. Thank you.--Caspian blue 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) P.S I have had many disagreements with Jehochman in the past, but I think he could be a good helper for me regarding your alleged concerns. So I think we could not gain something valuable as continuing the discussion. I will ask an advice to him. Thank you for your time.--Caspian blue 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 142.227.188.60 long term blocking? Hello. I was wondering if a longer term block for ip 142.227.188.60 would be in order. Looking at their history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:142.227.188.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A142.227.188.60 It seems that they will not stop being disruptive. Being a student of this school I do find it somewhat annoying to have to login to edit the pages, but i understand it is necissary to keep the quality of the encyclopedia. All I am saying is that there is allways going to be be some jerk wanting to mess with a page and 6 months or a year ban will fail to set them straight, and even if it does there will always be another jerk to replace them. If they are serious about improving the quality of wikipedia they can make an accoutn and use it to edit pages. That being said I do think that account creation should still be blocked or students will just make spam account (we have too much free time) Sorry for the lack of flow in this post but its still early and I havent woken up fully yet. --Devin122 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Bear in minds that IP can sometimes be reallocated to someone different by the ISP. That IP many not always be one your school's IPs. Similarly, an IP that used to represent a computer anyone could use may due to a reorganisation in the school in question, become the IP of a computer in the staff room. Because we can't be sure an IP will always be the source of vandalism, indefblocks of IPs are discouraged. Usually 6 months - 1 year is seen as the maximum time IPs should be blocked for. WJBscribe (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC) First off the ip in question is in a block controlled by the school board and if moved is likely to be moved to a diffrent school. It also seems to me that the ip address is also fairly static as I have special firewall rules to allow ftp and ssh acces to my server at home and have not needed to change the ip address since implementing it. Secondly what would the real damage be in blocking off say, a staff room? How many legitimate edits come from within the ip address/block in question. Even so it is of litte effort to create an account and do your edits that way. That being said however I fully understand your points. Devin122 (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Vandalisim Experiment Me again! I have tired very much after hearing people criticize the accuracy of wikipedia. To be able to finally quiet these people I was planning on doing some studies including comparing the accuracy of some of the articles to other sources. One of the more involved tests I was planning on was editing several pages (falsely) and cheking the time that it takes for the article to be corrected. If the article remained uncorrected in a certain amout of time i would change it back. However, not wanting the community to hate me I was wonderig if it would be permissible for this experiment to take place and if so if I could get a 'get out of jail free card' to avoid the enevitable ban resulting from the edits. I would fully understand if it were not possible, however I would like to see the results. Once again sorry for any disjointedness in this post as I'm still half asleep. Thanks in advance.--Devin122 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Imo, this is not right and should not happen. Vandalizing articles is completely unacceptable in all cases. It just shouldn't happen. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I don't think deliberately adding vandalism/false information is a good idea. You never know how many people might read if before it is corrected. There should be plenty of vandalism that happens anyway for someone to conduct such a study. WJBscribe (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I fully see your point and suppose I will have to settle with studying pre-existing vandalisim. Devin122 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Meetup photo One of you (Image:CambridgeMeetup01b.JPG) came out best, IMO. It's in the gallery at Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 1. Nice to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC) That is a sharp sweater-vest, nice pic. MBisanz talk 08:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Outings Hi there, it seems that our identities have been outed by some group called "wikipedia watch". What's up with that? Bearian (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC) BN case Do you recall this case: Wikipedia:BN#Unusual_problem_with_a_usurpation_.28has_dissapeared.29. I do not see why he had to usurp Rtg to get RTG, for one thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry to be rude, it is my request for the name above, just throwing in that it makes sense to me on Rleves point, so as to prevent mixups with stuff like: LUnatICfRiNGe with LuNAtIcFRiNGe which are subtly different and just the type of thing to make reference difficult. This could make sense with numbered and symbol only id as well 89.204.249.248 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC) I will comment on the thread on the noticeboard. WJBscribe (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Re: You are now an administrator Hi WJBscribe and thanks for the closure! I will make sure to check out those links and will try to ease into the administrative duties by reading and analyzing, instead of agressively jumping on them :) Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Advice I am canvassing a few bureaucrats about an issue. My personal ID now appears on a certain "watch" site. I have been outed, to put it bluntly. I'm actually not sure why I am considered a "leader" of "the hive." Should I go ahead and post my real name on my user page? My real concern is for family members' privacy. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Ah, sorry - I seem to have missed your earlier post to me on this issue while I was taking a short break. I will email you later today. WJBscribe (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Hi (Raunak777 → Raunak) Can u\you userpt me...I think you omitted me by mistake filed under 29 october.... --Raunak777 (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Looks like this has now been done by Rlevse - sorry for the delay in getting back to you. WJBscribe (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you I figure I might as well thank you for taking the time out and making the username change. You must do it often, but a "thank you" couldn't hurt, right? Much appreciated. Molerner (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you Hi WJBscribe! I've been meaning to thank you for a while now regarding this unfortunate piece of bad judgment of mine. You were understanding and you let me keep my account. Anyways, it's long overdue but thank you, and you can rest assured I didn't turn out to be something you'd regret. Cheers, DigitalNinja 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Mediation Ulster Defence Regiment Hi WJBscribe, I was directed to you by Tznkai about joining the above mediation. Could you possibly outline the process and procedure for me for joining and how I go about it. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 08:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Sure, could you sign at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment#Parties' agreement to mediate and join in the discussion on the talkpage? I'll let the mediator, Sunray, know you'll be joining the case. WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Common reasons for rejection Hi Will, I'd like to bounce off you my change to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection#Failure to demonstrate sufficient prior dispute resolution attempts. (Before/after diff.) That section has been vacant for some months, and, browsing through it earlier today, I thought it odd that we were offering no information on that topic to parties: after "not all parties agree to Mediation", "insufficient prior DR" is probably our most common reason for rejection. Any thoughts or concerns? Thanks, AGK 20:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Looks fine to me. Thanks for taking care of that. WJBscribe (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Other business Hi. You wrote: Ed doesn't seem to respond to many of these posts (perhaps because he seems them as unrelated to Wikipedia?). It is not unusual for people to be contacted in this way. Thanks for making both of these observations. It's true that I usually don't respond; I wonder if I should even delete non-Wikipedia-related comments. On the other hand, when I was proposed for admin rights earlier this year, my adminship at Conservapedia was brought into the discussion. So what's the best way to handle all this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I don't think you need to do much differently if you don't want - I think your current approach of rarely aswering should discourage people asking these questions anyway. If however you wanted to make it clear to the community that you regarded your editing here and that on Conservapedia as totally separate, you could n future respond to such posts with a message saying that you prefer to keep your talkpage for Wikipedia business and matters relating to other projects should be raised with you there or by email. You could even add a note to the top of your talkpage to that effect. To be honest I am surprised the issue arose given how rare these messages are, but if you wanted to acknowledge the fact that some people are concerned by them that would seem to me a sensible way of doing it. WJBscribe (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for help with usurpation. BoNoMoJo (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Courtesy notification - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination) An article in which you have had an interest, List of bow tie wearers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for your kindness when I recently posted after a run-in. All is well, and there are some extraordinarily kind and helpful people on this site. One individual in the U.K. has taken a real interest in some of my (often arcane) postings, and often tidies them up. The person has an extraordinarily good eye for detail, and a sense of nuance, which is rare. In any case, I conferred on him a barnstar (first I've given out as the technical side of this is sometimes not my forte). In any case, thanks for listening the last go-round. Much appreciated. Take care and regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC) RMV's RfA Thank you for closing the RfA. I have just seen a rather sad message and was on my way to ask you to close it. I see no point whatsoever in keeping long shots open once consensus is clear. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you and a question about SUL Hi Will, thank you so much for answering so fast to my request. It's amazing. Now, I'd like to do it to the other wikipedias where the user has an empty edit count. I found the link for the the polish wp on the french bureaucrats' page and I filled (rather painfully) the form. But I dunno where is the page giving the list of requests to bureaucrats' or SUL's pages. E.g., if you type SUL on the german wp, you'll find a page with the explanation of the SUL (Single User Login, d. h. die Möglichkeit, sich unter einem einzigen Benutzernamen auf allen Wiki-Projekten eindeutig identifizieren zu können) but no link. :(( Thank you for your help. Have a nice evening. BIRDIE ✉ 18:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I wrote a page on meta that lists places where you can request renaming: m:Index of pages where renaming can be requested. See if that helps. Otherwise you can check the local lists of users and contact bureaucrats directly. Most speak english - and a lot of projects have english instructions somewhere on the page where renaming requests are made - I suspect you'll find a reasonable number speak french as well. WJBscribe (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Usurption of Beano on sister projects WJBScribe, is there any way you can rename the blocked Beano accounts seen here so I can claim them with my unified login? If there is a step or something I need to do, could you let me know? Thanks for your help... ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) You'll need to make requests on the wikis those accounts have edited. m:Index of pages where renaming can be requested will point you in the right direction - if you don't speak the local language, I think you'll find most projects have crats who speak english. WJBscribe (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC) RFA withdrawal Hi, WJBscribe. I see that you (appropriately) withdrew Redmarkviolinist's RFA. However you did not indicate your reason on the closed RFA page. I had to go to RMV's talk page to confirm your reasoning. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I am disappointed that you have not responded. Perhaps you will respond to a direct question: when a bureaucrat closes an RFA early, do you think that the bureaucrat should indicate a reason? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC) For a standard close like that, it's common practice for bureaucrats to simply close it withou giving an explicit reason. The only time when the bureaucrats are expected to give a reason is in a highly contentious RfA that it in the discretionary (70-75%) range. This was not the case here and the close was in line with just about every other RfA close. If you do believe that the crats should make a comment on every RfA they close, I sugges you should bring it up at WP:BN and try and get consensus for it. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Okay, thanks Ryan. Although I don't consider that a "standard close". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry Axl, I missed your question for some reason. Do just poke me in some way if I don't seem to be getting back to you - it's not my practice to deliberately ignore questions. As Ryan says, where closes aren't contentious it hasn't been standard practice to give full reasons on the RfA page. Bureaucrats quite routinely withdraw RfAs that have no realistic prospect of success. One of the reasons not to spell that out that reason is in consideration for the candidate, as past RfAs tend to be quite prominent archived documents about them. In this case, I thought the important thing was to give personal feedback to the candidate rather than explain the action to the community. If you think such early closes unaccompanied by reasons cause confusion, it may be appropriate for bureaucrat practice in this area to change. I was however under the impression the reasons for early withdrawal of RfAs were understood and it that it was best to not "make too big a deal" out of it, which is why I currently act as I do. Anyway, apologies for not getting back to you sooner. WJBscribe (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC) No problem, thanks for answering. I'll comment further at WP:BN. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Notification [13] Because I do it to everyone.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 21 extra words, shocking - and someone told me I'd get away with it when it was 721... ;) WJBscribe (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Election And there was much rejoicing from Heimstern when he saw that WJBscribe was running for ArbCom. Good luck in the election. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements#WJBscribe - Heh, good luck, hope you get elected. RockManQ (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Yes, good luck, Will. I'm glad you are running this year. AGK 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC) ArbCom questions Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis? Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity? Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee? How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why? What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public? Why do you think users should vote for you? Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before. Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost From the editor  News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open  Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved  Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day  Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins  Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation  Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license  Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Silk Please, I would need a third opiniomn on this matter. I added a while ago new pictures to this article, which loked like this before I added them[14] My only goal was to make the article better, to illustrate the silk history, so I added new pictures see the article wich looked like this with the new pictures here [15] After a while many of my new pictures have been removed, and this is tha current state of the article now see [16]. I sincerely think that the article was better illustrated before (for ex. the Chinese silk history section). Images should depict their content well. One current picture is so dark that you can not se anything on it, an other shows horses and you can hardly spot the silk. Many good pictures have been remove, depicting the worms and the cocoons, the history of silk, and so on... But I wonder what your oppinion is. I do not feel like arguing about something I am uncertain about. Regards Warrington (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I think it's generally been felt that there shouldn't be so many pictures on a page that pig blank spaces in the text are created, i.e. a column of pictures shouldn't be longer than the text itself. Where images are relevant to the article but there isn't space to fit them alongside the text, one option is to add a gallery. The section would be titled == Gallery == and be formatted like a gallery on commons, e.g. the Views section of this page. Do bear in mind though that the more images there are on a page, the longer it will take to load (which can be an issue for people with slow internet connections) and that the page already has a link to more images of silk at Wikimedia Commons. As for the choice of specific images, the objection of the editor who removed the pictures seems to have been only about the number of pictures, so if you think a part of the article would be better illustrated with a different image you could change them ad see if anyone objects. If disagreement continues, you can discuss specific issues on the talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2008 No there were no disagreements, because I thougt I want to ask first others about this before making any moves at all. I was a bit uncertain myself how many images is good to ahve and how. The galley is a good idea. Thanks! Warrington (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)