User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 22
Polices, not policiesTo 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) RenameWas this supposed to happen? :/ Garden. 06:44, 3 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)
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 RfAI 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 clerksHi, 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)
Acount name changeWow! That was fast. Thank you very much! :) Rsazevedo msg 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) DigitalNinjaI 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)
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)
HeyHey, 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)
Well doneNice work. --John (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A SuggestionThis 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)
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)
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)
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)
Happy WJBscribe/Archive 22's Day!
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 projectHi, 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)
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)
AGF ≠ malicePlease 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: 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: 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)
User:Tenmei's intention?
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)
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)
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 ExperimentMe 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)
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 photoOne 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)
OutingsHi 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 caseDo 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)
Re: You are now an administratorHi 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) AdviceI 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)
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)
Thank youI 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 youHi 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 RegimentHi 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)
Common reasons for rejectionHi 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)
Other businessHi. You wrote:
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)
Thank youThank 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) Thank youThank 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 RfAThank 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 SULHi 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)
Usurption of Beano on sister projectsWJBScribe, 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)
RFA withdrawalHi, 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)
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)
Notification[13] Because I do it to everyone.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
ElectionAnd 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)
ArbCom questionsHi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.
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.
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) 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)
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! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
