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.
Happy New Year! I see you're a bureaucrat. Congratulations! (albeit late) We had some interaction a few weeks ago (DYK and subsequent conversation). Later, I saw your RfB so I added my support. An update on me, an article (Boeing 747) that I slaved on with another editor has just won the FA (featured article) star. What a way to begin 2008! Archtransit (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
On a Jan 1 Morning? Wasn't much of a stretch. :-) On a more serious note, however, I think I did everything right, but don't hesitate to chide me if I goofed or shouldn't have done that to begin with. I just have a soft spot for the well-intended newbie editor who naively nominate themselves to RfA way too soon. :-) — Coren(talk)05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK updaters are always needed .... So I'd encourage you to keep adminship in mind - I see you've already had need to report some vandals and have been involved in the occasional deletion discussion. You don't have to dedicate hours of your time to vandal reverting and deletion discussions to show people you could handle those areas if need be. And being willing to update protected pages like DYK is a very good reason to want to be an adminstrator. In a month or two, I think you could be in a position for a successful RfA if that was something you wanted to do. WjBscribe 21:00
Recently, an editor asked me if I'd agree to a RFA nomination. What do you think/am I RFA ready? Are you willing to transform your partial nomination/idea to a nomination? That other editor asking me has gotten in minor fight with others so it's not the most respected nominator (sorry, MEB if you're reading this, keep on editing and it'll go away!). Here's my analysis of an RFA [1]Archtransit (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear WJBscribe, on behalf of my snow-buried Canadian region of Ottawa, I would like to wish you a Safe and Happy New Year 2008. JForget02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And to you. Funny I was complaining today about it being cold in London - its a hell of lot warmer here than it is where you are. Guess I should count my blessings... WjBscribe02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Meetup
Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like another bureaucrat has reviewed your request. Feel free to request a different username if you still want to be renamed. WjBscribe21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No i won't bother, been wanting to use SKYNET since i've first registered wikipedia, but couldn't because of that inactive user. →Yun-Yuuzhan→11:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for offer
I had assumed that my request wasn't going to be granted, so I just started using my new account, and the world didn't end. Thanks for the offer, but there's no need to trouble. I'll just use the new ID from now on. Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
User Page
Hi WjBscribe. As a faithfull supporter of Elonka (here), you don't seem to be a very impartial judge either. I dispute your interpretations of things, and Elonka is actually multiplying attacks against me on various User Pages (here or here). I am essentially acting in self-defense, but fine, I cropped the text from my User Page. PHG (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As the admin that blocked him just recently...some questions....
Why are the following remarks by Matt NOT outrageous and bigotted enough to have him banned? Or is it only worth the effort if he makes personal attacks against individuals?
"Faggot is very important as it's a symbol of how desperate the proponents of the gay agenda have become and how homosexuals typically use identity politics as a justification for pretty much anything. No part of smearing me made sense except in the venereal diseased mind of radicals on a self-righteous jihad." Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) "...although gay culture, entertainment and pass-time is by definition pornographic." Matt Sanchez (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to continually attack both friendly and non-friendly, gay and atraight editors who attempt to tell Matt's story accurately as 'smearing him' due to 'venereal-diseased mind of radicals on a self-righteous jihad' as long as he doesn't ridicule individual's user names with childish homophobia-based modifications? Would it be OK to to speak of black culture as "by definition low class" for example as long as no editor is directly called "ni__er"?
Hopefully since I have so far refused to join Wikipedia due to its poisonous atmosphere (refuse to 'wrestle with pigs' as the old saying goes) you will still honor me with an answer here.
PS: Please notice he is amping up his childishness and mocking his previous block, you, and Wikipedia by now using "Aa***" and "B**" to refer to editors he previously attacked by modifying their usernames to slurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.174.251 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe, if it still hasn't been addressed, seems our requests are on closed ears at the moment, please look into the ANI and AIV on User:Bluemarine. Thank you! Benjiboi16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, just spotted this little gem "Once a Marine, always a Marine - unless you are gay." on his user page. Benjiboi16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not disagreeing, mind you, but you might explain to AllStarEcho how the prostitution thing is a BLP violation. I tried, but was in the middle of a dozen other things. I'm pretty sure sie sees it as "Here's the source, he said it, it goes in the article." And when you look at it from that perspective, sie's right - he did say it. I listened to the recording to make sure :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You have my greatest respect and admiration. As if you didn't already! Thanks for listening - I just hope I can keep my calm half as good as you do :) Having both Matt and James flare up at the same time has really got my blood pressure up... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)03:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez
Given that his behavior is long-term and spans not one but two accounts, I really don't like the idea of shortening the block. Given his track record and evidence presented in two ANI threads, he would not respond to edits like that constructively, and has no interest in anything but disrupting his own article (as shown by his edits and the fact that he has resorted to legal threats not once but twice). If you do shorten the block on User:Bluemarine, however, User:Mattsanchez should remain blocked. --Coredesat02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want to end up at ArbCom (I'm already involved in the Giano case, which unblocking him would seem to serve as a reminder of). The block should not be shortened to any less than two weeks, in my opinion. --Coredesat02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Shorten the block to a week, I thought about this and I'm no longer opposed to it, although I really don't like it. If his behavior continues after the block expires, he should be blocked indefinitely. No one is exempt from policy, regardless of the situation. --Coredesat02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually in a way it used to be worse. We used to have Pwok (talk·contribs) on the opposite side to Sanchez with his own brand of attacks (e.g. [2]) - Pwok runs a website dedicated to every detail of Sanchez's life that Matt Sanchez would rather forget. I think I've spent too many months watching that car crash for my own good - it all grinds you down after a while :-)... WjBscribe05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
mediation
Hi WJB, I have recently started assisting on the mediation pages - and accepted the request for this page: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-05_Turks_in_Bulgaria. It is going to be a lot less easy than the last case I accepted (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-12-30_Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia). I would really appreciate it if you had the time, to pop in every now and then to make sure I am not making things worse. In real life I am a doctor, and do a lot of mediation in health/psychological issues face-to-face, so I am very experienced. But this is not a clinic, and the participants see just a name, not a face. Is that going to be possible? Many thanks docboat (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to have been any discussion whatsoever on the page since the protection, and I fear that removal of the protection would lead to more sterile reverting. I supposed I could un-protect, with the proviso that anyone who reverts without Talk: page agreement would be blocked - what do you think? Jayjg (talk)03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the editors appears to have stopped editing, and the other edits only infrequently, so you're right, it's possible nothing will happen. I'll unprotect the page, but if either shows up solely for the purpose of reverting, I may well block them. Jayjg (talk)03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Correcting end time
I was going to ask for someone to do that, in my time zone 5:17 UTC transfers to 12:17 am, which is pretty late, even for a night person like myself. I would be out that next morning until about 1 pm (18:00 UTC), so that time change works perfect for me, and I can jump right into mopping (allowing a little while for a crat to notice it). Thanks! J-ſtanContribsUser page04:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The end time should be 7 days after the RfA was accepted or transcluded on WP:RFA (whichever is the later). I should be around when your RfA is due to close so I suspect you won't be waiting long. WjBscribe17:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm prob most often on IRC between 17:00 and 01:00 UTC. If you can't see me in any of the public channels, try asking for me and someone can probably track me down. I'm in #wikipedia-en now if you want to talk to me. WjBscribe18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Just so I know in the future, at about how many edits do you think I no longer need to note an account that is possibly too new? I ask because I would have assumed this case would not qualify for usurpation, but since you did it, I'd like some clarification so I don't note things when they're not needed. As a side note, this and
this request can be done now, I believe. I(talk)01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Done those two requests. As to the being too new question, its a difficult one to know in advance. Some bureaucrats like myself and Andrevan are probably more relaxed about that part of the criteria than others. The real question is whether the crat who reviews the request is persuaded the user will make decent use of the name. With that request, although I wasn't that happy with the high proportion of userspace edits, there were quite a lot of deleted edits from recent change patrol which probably tipped it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way your or the others are dealing with this issue - if you think the user may not be established you may as well flag it up. You don't know which crat will deal with the request anyway - Secretlondon or Deskana might well have declined it. I certainly gave it some thought. WjBscribe06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It looked like a tough one. I would be interested to know which arguments help most weight with you, and which ones you discounted. Would you explain the decision process you used, perhaps put a rationale on this RFA so I can understand better.
That RfA represented a fairly close call. However the predominant concern of those opposing was lack of understanding or failure to properly apply the speedy deletion criteria. This concern was supported by diffs (those by W.marsh at #7 were cited often by others for example) and those supporting did not challenge the validity of that supporting evidence. The issue was one that went to the heart of someone's ability to be an admin, rather being tangential to it. There were a significant number of people expressing neutral opinions who agreed that this was a valid concern. Many supporters agreed that the opposers' concerns were valid and expressly asked the candidate to take note of them, a few even expressed their support as being "weak" as a result of those issues.
Over the course of the discussion there seems ato have formed general agreement that this is an editor on the right track, who one day should probably be an administrator but a very significant number had a genuine concern about his suitability to undertake that role at this time. I weighed less strongly vaguer issues about "deletionist leanings" - the question is whether someone would as an admin make decision compatible with policy, not whether some users are unhappy with the way they might validly exercise discretion. However it is hard to divorce that concern from that about excessive deletion through misapplication of the CSD criteria. On a numerical assessment, this RfA was slightly outside the area where the community is comfortable with RfAs passing. Given that the opposition was predominantly very relevant, well argued and recognised as valid by other participants, I think the request had to be closed as unsuccessful. WjBscribe16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm tossing in my hand on the RFAr. The block on Sanchez was it. I've expended a great deal of effort on that article, but to have him do something as manifestly stupid as to violate his clearly and narrowly tailored unblock to wade into the waterboarding debate during an arbitration case cannot be justified, defended, or excused. I will continue to watch the RFAr, and will respond if appropriate, but I will not be adding any more to it. Horologium(talk)14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Bate methods
I'm the medcab mediator for this case and I saw you were involved as a medcomm mediator some time ago on it. Anything I need to be aware of or look out for? MBisanztalk20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
homeopathy is the future
WOULD YOU LIK TO CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPROJECT HOMEATPHY? GOOGLE IT PLEASE TO FIND OUT HOW YOUC AN DONATE YOUR ITME AND HELP SAVE MILLIONSOF LIFES EVERY SINGLE DAY THROUGH EDUCATION AND WIKIEDITING. Smith Jones (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a million for processing the userpation request for me! I have one slight problem, though - I wish to recreate the account 'TheIslander', to have as a doppleganger, but the system won't let me, as a user 'The Islander' already exists, which is too similar. I just wish to have the username as a doppleganger, to prevent it ever being re-registered and used against me, and it will consist solely of a redirect to my new userspace. Could you please create the account for me? Cheers ;). TheIslander01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you create the account while signed in to your account? Try going to Special:Userlogin and click "create one" without signing out. If that doesn't work let me know and I'll create it and email you the password. WjBscribe01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that doesn't seem to work either. Never even knew there was a username so similar to my own - I'd usurp him, as he hasn't bee active since September 2006, but he has edits to the mainspace. Thanks for your help ;). TalkIslander01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I knew the odds of succeeding were slim, though in honesty I wished it to continue to Sunday. But I figure it best to end it. In 3 months I will try again and next time I hope to succeed. Though not a trophy I understand it is still a goal to look forward to and in the end I hope to continue with editing even after the next time...successful or not. I wish you well and maybe next time the conversation will be with better news. Till the next time we meet. Rgoodermote13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the discussion that's been put up–regarding the proposal of 3-day waiting period for each candidate–would you not support this action? I agree with your perspective, but wouldn't a waiting span of at least a short period of time be properly attributing to the aim of the process? Rudget.17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was originally about a wait period for removing rollback. Having a wait time before handing it out may make sense depending on how one sees the process. If its just something any admin should hand out to users they trust, presumably each admin determines their own wait times. There may be suitable users the admin in question already trusts, or some admins may feel capable to make up their mind in a few minutes whereas others would like to consider the matter longer with input from others. While its at the discretion of each admin, the waiting periods are being dictated by the admins able to evaluate a candidate in the shortest times. To enforce wait times, we would presumably have to request that admins not award the right to users if asked outside the WP:RFR process. But could that be enforced if some admins said "I don't think its a big deal, anyone can ask me for rollback on their talkpage and will get it in a few minutes"? As a case in point, see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests.
There's also a practical problem given the likely number of users that qualify for the tool. At the moment, there are nearly 400 users who have been given rollback. If we had three days of discussion for each of them, we'd be trying to manage nearly 400 discussions....
Because every admin has the ability to give out the right, it makes it hard to set down rules as to how its given out. It might be different if admins had to request the ability to give out rollback, and agree to conditions on when they give it out. But as it is, all 1,463 admins were given it at once and are pretty free to do with it as they please. WjBscribe17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with the majority of that. It's upto the administrator's discretion to change the users right, especially if they are likely to know the candidate quite closely, a little like you and Archtransit for example (who doesn't need it now, as he has been promoted to administratorship). But if that haven't of happened and the candidate [i.e. Archtransit] requested rollback, you'd be more than likely to assert your profile of the nominee, and the same for users whom you had come across ether who are likely to misuse the tools or are most certainly have a tendecy to engage in edit wars. Additionally, I agree further with the comment about waiting times, 400 discussions in three days isn't good for bureaucrats, nevermind administrators. Handling that workload would require extreme precision and very swift action. Rudget.17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the rename
Thanks for carrying out my rename. Thats two bureaucrat actions you have taken on me recently and they have both been on-time and without problems, good to see the bureaucrats around here operate an excellent service. Camaron | Chris(talk)18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on your talkpage, and I suggest you be a little less ready to label other users as vandals in future. WjBscribe19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi might be an admin but he also blanked an active page with a mildly vulgar edit summary. Admins have fallen from grace before and become vandals, only to be blocked. I have no issues with Moreschi as a person (I've never had a previous encounter with him) but his page blanking, putting up an inappropriate image of a cat and mildly vulgar edit summary is grossly improper. As an admin and a crat I would expect you would look past his station and enforce the rules equally. Bstone (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be taking this a bit personally. First, let me assure you that a personal attack here could not be further from the truth. Second, tone is important and I couldn't agree more. I keep my tone respectful and professional. I would ask that you do the same as you are coming off very condescending. Lastly, I would ask that you take into consideration of what someone is doing now and now what their station or position has been. Any one of us can easily fall from grace at any time. It has happened before and I believe it might be happening again. Bstone (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page you write, "casual allegations of vandalism and demands for people to be blocked.". First, I never casually throw around vandalism reports. Ever. It's a very serious charge and must be considered very carefully. Second, I don't see where I demanded that Moreschi be blocked. I asked for intervention and action, tho I never advocated block. Indeed, if you look up, you will see that if I were an admin I would immediately unprotect the page and refer his actions to AN/I. Bstone (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Hello, WJBscribe, I recently used a wikibreak enforcer in my monobook during my exams,. However, I opted to take my exams early so I would have an extended weekend. Therefore, the wikibreak is no long needed. Would you be so kind as to remove it for me? I would greatly appreciate the favor. Thanks, Icestorm81519:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to bother you again, but it did not seem to work. I cleared my cache, even tried restarting the computer. Maybe it might work if you revert it back, but change the date to a time in the past? Thanks very much for helping me. Icestorm81520:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.49.202 (talk)
Sorry to bother you but since you appear to be the most active bureaucrat on WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U I thought you would know why the CHU arrow goes this way → add the CHU/U arrow goes this way ←. Thanks in advance Alexfusco512:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Rollback
Wow! Indeed I hadn't. :O My activity level has been fluctuating, and mostly low since Christmas, so I missed it. Although I hope this was done with the blessing of the Foundation — I don't know if it was. Because, as I mentioned in my comment, having admins handle user rights management is not in keeping with the user class structure maintained by the Foundation at this point. A couple of months back, I suggested that the Board of Trustees be consulted on this before moving forward with the proposition. I don't think that they were consulted though. They might be aware of what's being done just the same though, since Kat is on the Board, and there's Jimbo, of course, who would be aware of something like this. So if they haven't opposed (or vetoed), that may be tacit agreement. Thanks for the heads up on this! :) Cheers, Redux (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Jimbo said exactly what I had said: the Foundation needed to sanction it, since it would be a departure from the current user class structure. Of course, when I said it a month ago, some of the people participating in the discussion replied that the Foundation had nothing to do with it — a common mistake: the belief that this project can "overrule" the Foundation by means of a local vote. As I said, and Jimbo as well (his "2)" point of order), it would ultimately be up to the Board of Trustees to either ok or veto it. When the Board manifested itself, through its Chair, it did exactly what I predicted it would do (or it would be likely to do): authorize a test period, as an experience to see if it could work. I insisted on it now because people still refused to accept that Wikipedia is run by the Foundation. And there exactly was the one problem with the process: the feature seems to have been turned on before the Board could be heard on it. They okayed it retroactively, so there was no practical problem. In theory, however, it was a bad move; because if the Board had decided that this was not to be done (because admins don't handle rights management etc. etc.) we would have seen the devs be forced to turn it off cold turkey, regardless of what our community had wanted, which would have created a sense of malaise that would have been avoidable. Redux (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Cross-project username question
Hi Will- Thanks for your input on my username change request. I'd never heard of the proposal to unify usernames/logins across projects, and looked around at some of the discussions. They look to be currently inactive, most of them for a while. Do you know if the proposal is still on the table? -Eric(talk)16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The proposal has been on the table for the last 4 years I think. It looked a few months ago as if it was suddenly actually going to happen. Various concerns were brought up on the developer's mailing list in Ausust (see posts titled "SUL") and everything seems to have gone quiet again. So the honest answer is that no one knows what is happening for sure. At the moment moves towards it seem to be on ice, but it could happen next time some of the developers decide it was worth their time to work on. Its unclear whether there need to be a cross-project consensus to implement it as Brion seems to feel that one still exists from earlier discussions. That said, I think enthusiasm for the idea has cooled a lot given the increased number of projects over the last 4 years. Some of us think that implementing it would be a logistical nightmare - aside from the technical work on the part of the developers, all the renames to make it work would have to be done locally. So I can understand someone taking the risk that it won't happen but thought you should be aware that this possibility exists. WjBscribe16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the tip. It does seem like it would be a hassle. The idea was attractive to me initially, but after thinking on it and reading the discussions, I sense that implementation could be more disruptive than beneficial. I should say up front that my assessment here is based on a foundation of near-complete ignorance of how the wiki systems work together. I wonder if they have considered simply having everyone pick a home wiki, then letting the system append that wiki's subdomain to the front of one's username when one makes an edit outside one's home wiki. For example, if I--as a home user on en--make an edit on the French WP, that article's history would show the user as en:EHM02667, and the article name would be listed on my watchlist and contributions as fr:<article_name>. I can't imagine I'm the first person to come up with this approach, but couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. -Eric(talk)17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am very concerned over the temperment of Jehochment. He has violated official WP policy, not just a guideline. I blocked him for 12 hours. He got another admin to unblock him. I wrote to that admin saying that discussion would have been preferred, I would have shortened the block or unblocked if he had discussed it with me, that his reason for unblock was inaccurate, and that I would take no further action.
Yet, Jehochman continues to be irate. This lack of good temperament shows that he blocks but gets irate when the same thing is done to him. He also has not contemplated the purpose of his original block, i.e. to prevent short term damage to WP by bad judgement AND to review WP policy.
Jehochman want to take this to dispute resolution. There is no dispute to resolve. I have no intention to re-block. He has not made any attempt to defend his original violation of WP policy. I don't seek a confession from him. Rather I seek gentleman-like behavior and continuation of the improving of the WP encyclopedia.
He should not seek to continue the fight, seek more checkuser requests, etc. You should use your powers of persuation to calm the situation. Archtransit (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ms Julie is .. unavailable .. this month, so Isaac and Gopher have stepped in to put this newsletter thing together. We may not be as funny as you're used to, but if you'd like a free drink, come see me at the bar. That might help. Maybe. And no, there aren't any flashing lights or fancy pictures this month - I'm still recovering from a whopping hangover. Julie's recovering too, but that's a story I'll let her tell.
Two New Featured Articles (and...)
Emma Goldman was promoted to Featured status on 2007December 27. If you don't know Ms. Goldman, she was a Lithuanian anarchist. Aren't many of those around, really, so having one of our very own is special. She'll be dancing the Cha-Cha on the Promenade deck later tonight.
Ann Bannon was promoted to Featured status on 2007December 3. Faithful readers may remember Moni moaning that we didn't mention this promotion in the last newsletter. Happy now?
The marathon efforts of Dev920 against her astonishing abilities of procrastination continued this month, and she managed to update the Portal's main articles. Whether she will finally beat her procrastination pixies in submission and update the biographies remains to be seen, but Jeffpw has leapt to the rescue and taken it upon himself to do all our lovely news. Friends, lend us your goodwill and your eyeballs, and mosey on over to see all Jeff's hard work.
Also, back in October 2007, Allstarecho and Benjiboi worked diligently on the "WP:LGBT Random Quote" and "WP:LGBT Random Picture" sections of the portal. They added many new quotes and pictures but, and yes here's the cat's meow friends... you can now use these on your own user pages! To add the "WP:LGBT Random Quote" to your own userpage, use: {{Portal:LGBT/Quotes}} And to add the "WP:LGBT Random Picture" to your own userpage, use: {{Portal:LGBT/Pics}} If you'd like to see it in action, check out Allstarecho's userpage for both in action and Benjiboi's talk page for the Quotes in action!
The long, slow race toward FP status continues...
Bisexual Awareness Month
Folks in Utah are celebrating Bisexual Awareness Month. For our own wikicelebration, Alison suggests we try to bring Bisexuality at least up to good article status. Working on the Utah article would be encouraged, but do it stealthily - they don't like us to be *too* open.
A cunning plan
In a move sure to bring her fame and fortune at last, Dev920 (talk·contribs) has proposed that an FA buddying system be set up, to help nudge frightened tikes who also happen to write killer ass articles over that initial first FAC hurdle. Anyone interested in shepherding duties, or anyone interested in being made to lie beside still waters (handcuffs are optional), do drop Dev an RSVP so she can start battering those darned pixies...
Zigzig20s has mentioned a desire to work on .. desire. Specifically literature by and about LGBT desire. To facilitate "LGBT Literature" taskforce, there will be shuffleboard and lesbian fiction on the foredeck later in the afternoon. Signup if you're interested.
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.
So why is having a link to a site, no matter what's on the site, bad to have on my talk page? Bad enough that other people can remove it, even after I've asked for it to stay? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Because BLP applies outside articles and it would seriously undermine admins like Quadell and Shell Kinney trying to curb Wjhonson's recent flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy if we started being selective about where we allowed the material. I didn't know you'd asked it to stay, and am sure you did it to calm things down but in my opinion that was a bad idea. Linking to attacks offsite is only one step removed from making them here. WjBscribe21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm. I guess I see. And while I don't really care much either way, it seems to me we have links all over wikipedia to stuff that's WP:ATTACK, WP:COI, Unreliable, WP:CRUFT... It's hard enough to police the actual content of wikipedia, much less the links to other places. Is it really worth removing simple links that aren't in article-space?
BTW, my impression is there's some discussion going on re: Wjohnson's "work" - is that in the Bluemarine ArbComm? Or is there something else going on? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
He's added himself as a party to the Bluemarine ArbCom so I suspect it will feature there. Otherwise its either the article talkpage or maybe the BLP noticeboard? WjBscribe02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he has had that site for a while, now. It's a tamer version of Pwok's little hate page, but it's another example of the off-wiki stalking to which Sanchez has been subjected. Horologium(talk)04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I resent the implication that I'm stalking Sanchez, and I resent you characterizing my investigation as an "attack". Do you think being truthful is an attack? Perhaps you could respond to the substance of the page instead of making personal attacks against me. If you can find ANYTHING on my page that is an "attack" on Sanchez, versus a cited source about him, please cite it so I can remove it. Thanks. See further my motion in the ArbCom case. Wjhonson (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no wish to discuss the specifics of your "page" with you. It should be obvious that it contains a number of allegations denied by Matt Sanchez which are based on hearsay and innuendo. I shall be adding my own evidence and proposed decision to the ArbCom case, hopefully within the next day or two. WjBscribe07:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlike some editors, I don't accept a person's denial as having any more weight than the sourced assertions from others. The evidence speaks for itself, anyone reading my article on Matt Sanchez, can clearly see what evidence there is, and what there isn't. Any sensible person can seperate hearsay from direct evidence. I've never felt that our purpose here was to be nannies for the world. I look forward to reading your evidence and proposals. Wjhonson (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I put some of my evidence on the Evidence page of the ArbCom, hopefully you will read it. I *think* I was careful not to directly attack any particular person, and I certainly am not attacking you. If there is anything in my comments on the Evidence page which you feel is a personal attack against any specific person, as opposed to an attack against their arguments, please let me know. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
rfa
Thank you for your nomination, support, and recent advice. One thing I learned was one of the unwritten customs of blocking. You can be certain that I won't do that again. There was a chain of events that should teach several lessons. You are one of the few that I'll share this link with in order to prevent a new brawl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keilana#chain_of_eventsArchtransit (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
UNSC resolutions
Hi. I recreated an article which you deleted in the past, i.e. United Nations Security Council Resolution 822. I made it in the same format as other similar articles. I don't know why the previous article was deleted, and what content it had, but I suspect that the reason for deletion was the lack of sufficient content. The article created by me followed the standards for such articles. I won't object if you delete it if I did something wrong by creating it, but in my opinion this article can provide useful info about this particular resolution and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If it is ok to keep it, I want to create a few more similar articles. I realize that I should have contacted you before recreating a deleted article, but I did not immediately realize that this article has previously been deleted. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused, please advise. Thank you very much. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with recreation - I actually only deleted a redirect. Looks like the article the redirect pointed to just contained the full text of the resolution, rather than an article about it and was deleted following a {{Prod}} being added to it, not because of a deletion discussion. As far as I see it, Security Council Resolutions are notable. WjBscribe08:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I seemed to have edited articles well by beginning slowly and so I’ll take the same path as an admin from now on. Slow and easy stuff at first, DYK is and always will be an interest. Later, still DYK but a little something else. I'm not that much of an idiot and do become proficient at tasks eventually. Sorry for the fuss of the past day or two. Archtransit (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Mtmelendez is spot-on when it comes to this conversation. Just to get a heads-up: I deleted it after an editor had referred me to it and then to which I responded by closing the MfD with a delete. I guess I was rather vague (and hasty to an extent) in relevance to the discussion and I didn't really provide a good enough reason for the deletion summary. After the deletion (for which I had quoted T1 as the primary rationale, all the pages it was transcluded onto suddenly cropped up at CSD and so I was cautious and decided to restore it to delete it again to see whether this would clear it, it didn't. The user who had referred me to the MfD then carried out the procedure, which in retrospect, I should have known - i.e. adding <noinclude></noinclude> to just before and after the speedy deletion template. I then restored it once again per this comment and then became involved in the early version of the discussion. I apologised and had abstained from further comment because of the nature of this conversation. It seemed to create a quite large divide in the consensus I thought would have endorsed the deletion, but with currently about half and half, that is still to prevail. As Mtmelendez puts it simply, " If serious issues are brought in an XFD discussion, perhaps it's time to analyze the established consensus, and either change it or clarify and enforce it". - I believe at least then we can help with these sort of userboxes and whether their presence or absence is determined by the correct policies and guidelines. Regards, Rudget.21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like events have overtaken this. I think the close of that MfD is valid and is practically probably the only one that could have been made. It is clear that there was no meeting of minds between those who expressed views on the subject nor any great triumph of argument by one side. Those wishing the box kept were in a numerical majority. I think the decision to start a request for comment on userbox content policy is probably a good idea. Part of the difficulty at MfD was that there isn't a settled view of the approach that should be taken to problematic userbox content, or how "divisive" is defined in this content. It may well produce more light and less heat to discuss the issues in the abstract rather than be concerned with individual examples about which tempers may be running high. These policy RfCs don't always yield results, but its likely a sensible place to take the discussion next. WjBscribe08:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, but at least we can get a clearer picture on where the community stands. If the community is truly divided on this based on opinions (and not based on individual userboxes as you said) we'll find out there. Thanks Will. - Mtmelendez(Talk)12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe. I thank you for assisting with the John Howard RfM. Can you comment, please, on the talkpage regarding how to expand the list. I don't mind sending an invitation to every 'interested party' on the previous attempt at RfM, but my concern is that some may not be interested enough to reply, thus shutting down the process. Or, can we just add the extra participants that do reply, without shutting down the RfM if others don't reply? There's a discussion on the RfM talk page. Thank you. Lester20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello WJBscribe, looking at your edits using this edit counter, it lists all your edits and admin actions month-by-month. However, when looking at my edits with the same counter, it doesn't have the month-by-month count. Do you know why this is? Acalamari22:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to opt in to get the by-month bit. I think you used to just click on that bit before but that function doesn't seem to be working at the moment - just gives an error message. You could try emailing Interiot, whose tool it is, but he hasn't been very active for a while now. WjBscribe22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen those discussions before. Either they are forgeries or they were obtained through the hacking of Matt Sanchez's email account. Either scenario is rather serious. WjBscribe05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that now. It was a SPA, and a new one at that. Should that post be deleted (if Thatcher hasn't already done so)? Aleta(Sing)05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting Terrelle's article. I was thinking about asking for protection so you saved me the "trouble". It was getting old reverting vandalism all the time. Burner0718 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Question...
It's been suggested that I change my name - probably because of its length of use of the word "sockpuppet". This account was originally created as an alternate account for my User:Okiefromokla, though I would just as soon merge this account back rather than change its name, if possible. The only problem is I have no idea what the password for my original account is anymore (and I didn't have the email feature enabled). Is there any way to do merge accounts and change passwords? If not, I'll go the conventional name-change rout. Thanks! Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There isn't a way to merge the contributions of two accounts and you can only reset the password for an account if you had an email address set for that account. However, as both are obviously yours I'd be willing to give you the old name back. I could:
Rename Okiefromokla to Okiefromokla (old)
Then rename This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla to Okiefromokla
This newbie admin continue to make horrible decisions, even after all the warnings. It's time for them to step down quietly before there's a big drama. See [4] and [5].
The bad block against me was a mulligan. I was ready to laugh it off, but now it appears to be part of a pattern. The bad block of Stawiki (talk·contribs) was strike two. Then he attacked User:Keilana[6] and got a sharp rebuke from User:Alison.[7] That gave me cause for serious concern. Finally, Archtransit goes and unblocks User:CtlFn who has 23 blocks on the log, and while there is a huge consensus on ANI to keep the indef block in place.
I'll look into it. The Alison business is all tied in to the original checkuser case and blocks - I think that's behind us. In this latest matter he seems to be overly AGFing, he needs to defer more to people with more experience of user conduct issues. "Purposefully trying to cause chaos" seems to be putting it a little strongly. I remember certain other admins taking a lot of criticism for getting rather out of their depth in their first weeks on the job. Lets see what his explanation is this time... WjBscribe23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
ack !
i have a question and for the life of me i can't figure out where/ how to submit it to you !
this has nothing to do with county historian...
where do i write ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Three fine days (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
i successfully changed user names... but in looking at some editing that i did and un-did earlier... the 'undo' sections still show the previous user name that i no longer have...
i would like all of those lines to reflect the new name.
help ?
Try typing "Kitten Huffing" into the search box - you'll end up at the same target. The software treats regards a redirect from Kitten huffing as also being on from Kitten Huffing. Though actually given there are incoming links to both capitalisations we may as well keep both. WjBscribe01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
medcab buddy system
I'd love to help with mediation, but I'm worried I'm going to make major mistakes and screw up the process. Dunno where to go or who to ask, so here I am! :) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Desysop required
Hi WJBscribe,
Please desysop: Admin Rudget as he has now retired.
If I may interject, I know many people that have retired from real world jobs only to return to the rat race. If there is good reason why you personally no longer trust the user with the tools, it would be helpful if you can explain this; only then is a de-sysop worth considering. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, WJBscribe is not capable of desyopping people. No bureaucrats can. Your request should be made to the stewards, but I doubt they would do it. --Deskana(talk)13:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The first reason is that the User has retired, and the second is that if the User's cousin, who used his account yesterday for bad things, manages to hack back into it then there could be some potential problems... The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs)(Review)15:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well then you should ask a steward. Neither I nor WJBscribe could do it, irrespective of whether or not we agree with you. --Deskana(talk)16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, except if there is an actual emergency in progress, requests that an administrator be desysopped go to the Arbitration Committee. The Stewards will only desysop based on a request from either the admin himself or herself or from the arbitrators (or, again, in the event of an actual emergency). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Help requested to mediate deletion of article Maurizio Giuliano
Dear Chair,
The above article has been the subject of changes and disputes, and finally it has been deleted. I was involved in editing the article, and I honestly can disclose the fact that I know the subject of the article. But I honestly don't feel that I am biased in favour of the article - though as a lawyer, I trust you can better see whether I am indeed objective as I claim to be.
To the best of my perception, most if not all the changes, and the deletion itself, saw the involvement of a specific user, whom I shall not mention out of courtesy. I was surprised by the objections and changes made by the user, but did not object, and instead worked with him to solve the issue and improve my own objectivity. We had some useful correspondence and I felt the issue was being addressed informally.
PROBLEM: Now however, the article has been deleted. And I can see on the deletion discussion, that there was no consensus at all. One specific user pushed for the deletion, and a decision was taken to delete, despite many votes to keep. The discussion seems to me very biased against the subject of the article, and I note the following:
The objector stated that his status as Guinness record holder is not proven. The subject IS in the Guinness Book of World Records, 2006 edition, page 126 on the UK edition. I can send a copy of the scanned page by email or upload it as may be requested. I think this already makes him notable. (The objector pointed out that some online media cited him as being 23 when he broke the record. He was instead 28, and this is reflected correctly in the Guinness Book and in other media. Some media just got it wrong. I don't see why this should be relevant).
Regarding his books, the subject published two books. The objector claimed that these are self-published sources. That is true. But there is also plenty of third-party materials about his books, which you can find online. So, he published two books which have been reviewed by others - he is an author. I think this is enough for inclusion.
Finally, the strangest thing: the objector disputes his notability as a UN official ! The issue here is that his status as a UN official was not even mentioned in the article - certainly not until I last saw it ! So, why did this become a topic for discussion ? This makes me almost suspect that there may be a 'personal' element.
Regarding other articles where he is cited... The same user has also deleted his name from several articles. One of them is the one on the Centre for Social Studies (CESOC), where there was a sentence stating that the Centre's published authors included him. How can this be disputed ? There is a book with ISBN etc. available on Amazon, clearly indicating that he is the author and the Centre is the publisher. This should be sufficient proof of the fact that he is one of the Centre's published authors.
I hope you can resolve the dispute, and my ideal solution would be:
- The article is reinstated, and you can make any changes to it you deem appropriate.
- If there is anything substantial I object to or if I want to add new info, I shall contact you (or someone you might designate) instead of making changes directly.
- The one user who keeps objecting to the article should be asked to refrain from making changes directly, and instead go via you (or someone you might designate).
This issues has now been discussed twice - first at the request for deletion, then at the review of the deletion. It doesn't look like you were involved in either of those stages, and so you might want to request another deletion review. I would recommend however, that instead you discuss the matter calmly with the deleting admin and ask what additional material they feel would be necessary to create a policy compliant article. I am not going to review the substance of the issue - I have no more authority than anyone else to determine what content should be included in Wikipedia. It seems to me the best approach for you would be to explain that you would like to create an article that meets the inclusion requirements of Wikipedia, and that you would appreciate the deleting admin's guidance on how to further reference the article in order to comply with those requirements. Given that some users thought the article should have been retained, it suggests that there is not that long a way to go.
If you wanted to request formal mediation, you could make a request a WP:RFM but I think you would need to explore other avenues firsts - such as discussion with the deleting admin. Ultimately there are specific avenues available to reviewing deletion decisions (such as deletion review) and mediation is not something usually sought in these matters. WjBscribe00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Chair, Thanks a lot. I shall indeed seek the help of the deleting admin, and any help you can provide in letting me know how to do this would be helpful. (Sorry I am not so familiar with wikipedia yet). I dont even know how to access the deleted article.
Still, even assuming the article may be reinstated, I feel that my request for mediation concerns another issue, and I am sorry this was not clear enough in my oroginal message. The request does not essentially concern the article itself or the subject of the article, but rather, the fact that one specific user seems almost 'obsessed' about the subject, as if he had personal animosity against him. If my claim is proven or at least deemed reasonable, i.e. that he is obsessed and has acted out of obsession rather than based on wikipedia policy, then I believe that the user should be kindly requested to stay away from the discussion on deletion and (if reinstated) from the article, unless he can behave objectively and not in an obsessed manner. My claim that he is obsessed about the subject is substantiated, I believe, by several examples, e.g.:
As one of the criteria for deletion, the user disputes the subject's notability as a UN official. This is clearly irrelevant, since his status as a UN official was not even mentioned in the article, which only mentioned his status as author and Guinness record holder. This suggests, in my opinion, that the user did his own research outside the article, and that he has some personal anomosity against the subject.
The user claimed that the subject's books are not sufficiently important, as there are no third-party reviews. This is blatantly false, and in fact, the user had earlier helped - at the time we were talking - to improve the references to such reviews.
In the article on the Centre for Social Studies (CESOC), a think-tank and publisher, where the subject was mentioned as one of the authors of the institution, the user deleted his name (but not those of others !) citing "unsourced matter". This is ridiculous, since there is a book, duly included in the bibliography section of the subject's article, where he is the author and CESOC is the publisher. Again, I think this appears symptomatic of an obsession with the subject, which is not a manifestation of proper wikipedia policy.
The article on Aung San Suu Kyi contained a reference to the subject, referenced to online sources, as someone who was expelled from Burma after meeting her. The user removed his name (but had never touched the rest of the article !) stating that the online sources only referred to him having photos of Aung San Suu Kyi and not meeting her - which is silly, as this clearly meant photos of the subject with Aung San Suu Kyi in the context, which means that they met. Again, I feel the user has basically done whatever he could, to eliminate the subject from wikipedia, and for this purpose went specifically to all articles where he was mentioned.
In previous changes to the subject's article, the user had cited as unsourced facts almost every line. Without going into detail, I foudn that quite obsessive.
So, could I request mediation on this ? If you agree that there is a prima facie case of unproper behaviour by that user, would it be possible for you to ask the user to either stay away from discussion on the matter (especially discussion on reinstating the article), or at least to behave objectively ?
I'll take a look - but its probably better not to see my involvement here as being "as a crat". I'm rather too involved to be looked to for a neutral opinion. I nominated Archtransit for adminship so have a certain vested interest both in him and in salvaging some of my own reputation :-)... WjBscribe17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
With the 'crat comment I simply meant that you've proven yourself over a long time to have excellent judgment and you may have seen a situation like this before, whereas I certainly have not. Just thought you might have a perspective on it that others (myself included) had not.
What do you mean "his stress playing a later role"? Read the link still in the text [8] Where he talks about having filmed the role as Dylan while in London filming Batman. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you acting taking this case or are you just accepting it on behalf of the committee? I got the impression it was the latter. -- tariqabjotu05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I request your advice regarding the John Howard RfM, at on the talk page subject titled: How long does this go on?. My impression is that an editor may want to abstain from the RfM, feeling that a compromise can't be reached. Are there any advantages for an editor to join the RfM in this situation? Thanks, Lester03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
whisper number article
can i get your help or advice on this article? why is it that every change i make is reverted, yet every change made by 24.182.143.16, although not within the rules of wiki editing, are accepted? My last change deleted information, and it was seen as 'unconstructive'. Yet the past four changes made by this 24.182.143.16 (including opinion and non sourced comments) were accepted. I've asked others for help (including an original editor UncleG) and yet no one is making any other changes except those I input. I tried to start a mediation but it said the article did not exist. Any help would be appreciated. 69.69.74.68 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC) aka whisper 123, now Whisper1234 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe I explained on the talkpage why your assessment of the consensus was incorrect - and frankly some of the representations you made of other users' views were dishonest. Your ownership of that article has gone beyond a joke and I am leaning towards agreeing that ArbCom need to look into your conduct. WjBscribe15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the apparent widespread damage happening to the encyclopedia, and my involvement back in September with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, I felt an inescapable responsibility to bring this matter to ArbCom's attention after so much time had passed without resolution. I very much regret any inconvenience this may cause to you or other parties. I feel that my responsibilities are discharged, and I will not involve myself further unless somebody directs remarks to me. JehochmanTalk15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed you at WP:LAW, WP:MEDCOM, and WP:MEDCAB and looked you up on Special:listusers to see what your privileges were. In doing so I noticed what appeared to be an anomaly regarding your account. If I run a Special:listusers report on all users beginning with "WJBscribe" (or anything before that) I do not see your "group memberships" (i.e. privileges) in parentheses after your user name. I guessed that you must be an admin at least so I re-ran the report on all admins and then all bureaucrats and your privileges did show in parentheses after your name. I thought maybe it didn't show under "all users" so I ran Kirill Lokshin under all users and his privileges did show. I've since run most of the other Bureaucrats' names, several admins and rollbacks, and the founder but yours is the only account I found that doesn't show this. (reply wherever you like, but I prefer unified discussions, thanks).--Doug.(talk • contribs)21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged to you, and thank you for your patience. I hope that the mop will be doing more useful things than clearing up the debris. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Changing Username
Hi there, thanks for changing my username! While scrolling down the Changing Username page I noticed that you thought that the name Parisisburning "seems to refer to real life violent events". It is more likely a reference to the documentary Paris is Burning, about the NYC ballroom community. Thought I should tell you, cheers, David Šenek (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I have been unexpectedly busy away from Wikipedia over the last few days. You should have a reply in a few hours - I have quite a bit to catch up on. WjBscribe15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you missed my comment here, I would still like the name Tex. I understand that I may need to be renamed yet again if/when the single user login comes to be, but that may be years from now...SGT Tex (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Username change
Sorry to bother you with something trivial. I tried to change my username for the first time and think I made a moxy of it by trying to change it more than once. I decided I didn't like what I changed it too and picked something else. Before I knew it I had redirects and double directs coming out of my hair! What have I done? Any advice would be welcome. Originally User:Rac fleming wanted to be User:Robert Fleming, and somehow a couple of things inbetween as well... Rac fleming (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I know you have a vested interest in helping Archtransit, so can you weigh in there and offer some constructive comments from someone he knows/respects? Thanks Avruchtalk22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's what happened:
1. Fairchoice blocked for tenatious editing. First time blocked. Blocked indefinitely.
2. Sandstein declines unblock but states doubt about duration and asks user for indication of good intent (paraphrased).
3. Mangojuice makes comments saying that overuse of "claims" and "alleges" can be biased, which supports the blocked user's opinion.
4. I saw that the blocking administrator had a black sign which seemed to say "retired". Therefore, I contacted Sandstein, who declined the unblock request but offered comments in his answering of the request (so he's sort of becomes the co-blocking administrator). Based on Sandstein's own comments and Mangojuice (AND not introducing any comments of support for the user), I changed the duration of block from indefinite to 48 hours. Note: We cannot wait too long because the blocked user is probably anxious and cannot sit idle while admins (all of whom are not blocked) sit around over tea and debate. The longer they sit, they become angry, outraged, and start the sock process. Give them some hope that we are not out to get them.
5. I offered advice to the blocked user.
6. Guy, the original blocking admin, later states that he doesn't oppose the reduction as long as the user is watched.
7. Others still protest. I am concerned that the real reason for protest is either A. Some oppose anything I do; or B. Some favor widespread and indefinite blocking of others.
Archtransit (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Important to note that there were no responses to Archtransit between his contacting of Sandstein and his unblock - in fact, the elapsed time was exactly 10 minutes. Archtransit's "unblock" was 25 minutes after JzG's initial block, yet Archtransit believed JzG had retired. The problem is that Archtransit did not do adequate research (else he would have seen JzG was "tired" not "REtired") and did not allow for discussion of his proposed unblock to take place before implimenting it (10 minutes on a user-talk page is not enough). There was no comment on the unblock between Archtransit's initial statment of possible intent and his unblock. Full disclosure - I favor widespread indefinite blocking of disruptive users. I suggest that Archtransit's unique ideas about unblocking (it needs be done fast, lest otherwise good users become EVIL PUPPETMASTERS) is in error. If there was consensus that unblocking needed to be done fast, there would be statements that unblocking normally does not require the comment from the blocking admin. This is an ongoing and repeated mistake. Archtransit needs to stop making these newbie admin mistakes lest he proves he is not ready for the bit. PouponOnToast (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
