User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 26

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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

RfB response

Hi, I've left a (perhaps tl;dr) response to your comment at my RfB. I tried to make my thoughts as honest and sincere as possible, so could you please take a look if you're not too busy? Hope you've had an enjoyable Holiday Season so far, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm going to bed now but I'll try and look at it tomorrow. To be honest, I'm a bit baffled as to why you chose the week after Christmas to run, when many people have very limited time for the wiki. I very nearly missed your RfB altogether. Btw, regarding the point I made regarding diplomacy: "simply too much debate for one bureaucrat to reasonably examine in one sitting" wasn't great from where I'm sitting either. WJBscribe (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. I figured now would be a good time to hit the chopping block for a few reasons, most notably that I'm off from school this week, so it works out better for me. (Post-edit conflict: hmm, I'm not sure I see the issue with that choice of words. Could you please clarify?) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my reply is later in coming than I had hoped - I anticipate being able to reply later tonight (UTC time). WJBscribe (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, sorry I was late in replying - haven't had much free time with internet access over the holiday period. As to my comment above, I fully accept that I may make the wrong call from time to time but I rather resent the suggestion that I behave unreasonably when acting as a bureaucrat on this project. I think that's a rather strong accusation: if I thought it was widely held belief, I would resign. WJBscribe (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but who suggested that? I certainly didn't. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actuallu, you did. You stated that, had you been the one to close that RfA, you would have opened a bureaucrat discussion because there was "simply too much debate for one bureaucrat to reasonably examine in one sitting". You stated above that you stood by that statement. But I (being the one who did close that discussion) closed it without iniating a bureaucrat discussion - something you apparently believe it was unreasonable of a bureaucrat to do. WJBscribe (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Those questions are to be answered hypothetical, though, and without regard to the actual result, so my remarks weren't an attempt to make a point about your closure. Apologies if it came across that way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another reason to have anonymous RfX examples. The way it exists, the RfB candidate has to essentially reach the same conclusion as the person who closed it, or it might be deemed an attack on the original close(r). By making them anonymous, you avoid that and thus get a better response.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary. Most bureaucrat candidates seem to manage to indicate that they disagree with the closing crat's decisions without calling into question the competence or reasonableness of the close without too much difficulty. It's OK to disagree, it just requires a small amount of finesse. WJBscribe (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi WJB, I'm glad to see you around these days. Many years ago you reviewed me in an editor review. I've requested another one and wondered if you'd be interested in looking at my contributions again. Im particularly interested to see how different the two reviews will be. Mkdw ^talk 00:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm around, I'm quite a bit busier off wiki than I used to be so it may be a few days before I can take a look at your new review and my comments might be a bit briefer. I'm glad that you're still editing the project. WJBscribe (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion for Juliancolton RfB

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Joe, but in the circumstances I think it's better if I don't participate in this one. WJBscribe (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, just being thorough in notifications. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant harassment against me by a small group of editors

Can you please do something about this? There are a small group of editors that keep harassing me by constantly insulting me and then requesting that I be banned. It has gotten well out of hand and I feel that the bureaucrats as a whole need to step and tell them to stop it. Here is an attempt by them to get me banned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wiki Greek Basketball. I am 100% confident that there must be some kind of site policy that is against trying to wrongly get people banned and doing it simply out of some sort of hatred or personal issues. I don't know what exactly to do about this other than to report it directly to a general group of people. That is why I am telling you and all the others directly about it. Because reporting it on the noticeboard is not working and does not work. As long as only a small group of people are involved they are able to harass you and get away with it. Please kindly tell these editors to stop harassing me and to not bring any false abuse reports against me again and please tell them to not attempt to wrongly ban me again. I thank you very, very much if you will help me with this. Thank you sincerely for any help as it will be greatly appreciated.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that bureaucrats have no particular role in discussions about blocking/banning. I suggest you present your arguments (calmly and politely if possible) in the thread you have linked why such sanctions are inappropriate in your case. If you think that there are elements of your past behaviour that you should (and will) improve, then it would be a good idea to say that clearly. If you feel that any sanction ultimately imposed against you is unfair, you may be able to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. WJBscribe (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

== Change username=%3D

Please, could you solve my request in Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations? Thank you--WW1 (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you User:Wiki-Wiki on ca.wikiquote? If so, could make an edit on that project to confirm your request? WJBscribe (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

CHU related thread on WP:BN

Hi there. Just a note, I mentioned one of your actions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Username changes and accounts on other wikis. :-) Regards So Why 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks, Think you could move it Commons if it meets the requirements?

I wasn't sure C Ford and Secret London where the same entity though.... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

SoWhy RfB

Hi, Will.

I though that we usually do not close failing RfA/Bs early, only those which are passing by a long shot and have not been edited in the past couple of hours? While highly unlikely that difference will be made, it it can only help a failing candidate to leave it open to the very end. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I did close it early, did I? It was scheduled to end at 14:36, 13 January 2010 and my close is timed at 14:45, 13 January 2010... WJBscribe (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It was very soon after the scheduled running time but not early, true. Maybe Avi means that crats usually not close RFXs within 10 minutes after it was scheduled to end.

Regards So Why 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My fault, My timing was off (UTC/EST mixup), it looked a few hours early. My apologies, Will

-- Avi (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, at the moment my local time is UTC+0, so I have it easy! WJBscribe (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User name usurpation

Hello,

I saw you as one of the administrators on the username usurpation page and have a question. I have been editing anonymously as a user here at Wikipedia for several months and would like a certain user name so I can continue editing comfortably. The reason for this is that my IP address changes every so often (although I can easily go back and find all of the relevant IPs) and also because at times another person in my household has vandalized Wikipedia (I have even reported my own IP to be blocked before to prevent it!). The user name in question that I want was blocked for pure vandalism and has only a very few edits that were all made two to three years ago. Is there anyway that this account can be freed up for me to register and begin editing immediately rather than making up some name and then having to wait to change it? If it can be considered, I will immediately post all necessary info. Thank you! 142.68.138.25 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will definitely consider it. Has the name you want been used on any other Wikimedia project? (you can check with this tool). WJBscribe (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the swift reply! It seems to have been used in the following Wikis: Arabic (last edit in 2008 but seems to be a lot), Czech (2 edits in 2005), English (blocked as a pure vandal account, 29 edits), Wikiversity (1 edit creating user page), French (1 edit from 2005), Hungarian (160 edits, last in November), Portuguese Wikiversity (13 edits all on the same article, same day in March 2009), Slovakian (1 listed edit but no visible contributions), and two Chinese ones with edits back in 2005. Does this prohibit the freeing up of the English user name? 142.68.138.25 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid the Hungarian editor has first claim to the name on other projects, so it won't be possible to give it you on this project. Perhaps there is another name that you might wish to edit under? WJBscribe (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RFAR

Most of your statement is quite fair and reasonable. Yet I find it worrisome that you raise MZMcBride's accusations against me and that you go so far as to suggest they are true, without any mention of the response I provided. It saddens me to see you lend your good name to accusations which I regard as scurrilous. Would you consider modifying your statement please? Durova⁴⁰³ 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by your comment. I pointed out that MZM's decision to attack your motives rather than address your concerns was inappropriate. I happen to think we all are influenced to some extent by our past interactions with the people concerned (which was why I acknowledge the possibility in myself). I meant to highlight their irrelevance, no validate them. If you think my comment does the latter, I will of course modify it. I certainly did not intend offense. WJBscribe (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a little bit worried about MZM's claims gaining the force of a meme. In the past, things that seemed too low and absurd to notice did become memes and it's quite frustrating to respond once they get out of hand. It did seem like the overall aim of your comment was intended differently. Yet it was possible to construe a different meaning, especially for readers who skim. Thank you very much for the change. :) Best regards, Durova⁴⁰³ 18:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick thank you

Thanks for the additional vetting of the old account. I know it eased quite a few peoples' minds. Also, of course, thanks for changing the bit from 0 to 1. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. WJBscribe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing both is a conflict of interest and unwittingly robs Floquenbeam of legitimacy. A way to fix this is described. It's so simple to fix now but delay this and it will not be doing a service to Flo in the future. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Crat mailing list

I'd love to debate this with you further, but am up against some RL pressure.

Will you raise it with me next week please, if I forget to do so? Cheers --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I can't remember if you participated in the discussion, but I voiced my objections more fully here: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_15#Mailing_list. WJBscribe (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi WJB. The Crat list has developed a little since it was created. It now has nearly no traffic at all. Any traffic on it now tends to be of two kinds - first, where there's a privacy issue and a Crat wants some help or to somehow log something and second, where Arbcom/Functionary list issues spill into Cratwork and they want us to be aware/respond to something. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that this answers my concerns, but I am relieved that the list has only minimal traffic. I still think setting up the list sacrificed the fact that bureaucrats were previously a group who held their discussions on wiki and were therefore fully upon to scrutiny. We are left asking the community to take on trust that the list is used only a little and uncontroversially. Given the history of closed lists on this project, it is unsurprising that many (including myself) are rather cynical about them. My views remain:

Where a privacy issue arises, people would be better off contacting individual crats. The more people know of an issue, the less private it is. "Logging" such actions seems counter-intuitive. Closed lists have been compromised before.
As to ArbCom/functionaries list issues, I worry that these are spilling into cratwork at all. Where they do, this should either involve a privacy issue (in which case the points I make above apply and requests would be better directed to individual crats) or it should be something that can be posted openly to the wiki (e.g. at WP:BN.)

In the time before the list was set up, I dealt with numerous requests of a private nature. Requests from ArbCom/oversight/checkusers (the functionaries list is a questionable development) to bureaucrats were made onwiki. I never thought that a private list would be helpful in dealing with these matters, quite the contrary. No one ever asked me as a crat to set up such a list - in fact I regularly heard people cite with approval the fact that bureaucrats managed to conduct their business without a secret list, IRC channel etc. Having this list is a mistake and in my opinion causes more harm than good. Obviously I judge as a non-subscribed user, but that does put me in the same position as pretty much everyone else.

Btw, are any non-bureaucrats members of the list? WJBscribe (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the subscriber list, there are the same number on it as are listed in the WP:CRAT column, some of the names obviously don't match since people's emails aren't the same as their username, but it appears that 100% of the list membership are crats and are reflected on the onwiki list. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have personally verified the credentials (including an on-wiki logged-in confirmation) of every subscriber. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Except where I already knew the subscriber's email address. Oh, and except myself, of course :-) --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

On your main, reasonably-argued point, what this seems to boil down to is that you feel we don't get enough added value from having the list, versus the loss of the previous status where everyone knew Crats didn't have a cabally list.

A fair dichotomy. I have a suggestion for resolving if it is accurate. Why not join the list for a month and log onwiki (in a generalised, sensitive manner) every message thread and thereby track (say, at WP:CRATLISTAUDIT?) whether INYO the list has any value? (Actually, traffic is so low, a month may not be long enough) At the end of that, we could take a view, as a group, whether we should discard it or if it has utility, in a rigorous manner. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
<nudge> --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] Promise I'll reply when things less hectic. WJBscribe (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As I'm not very active myself just now, I'm not too sure if you're back yet... --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I've answered you at User_talk:Soap#AbuseFilter

And I'd like to add that I think that the fact that there were two major false positives in this filter in the last few days is just a coincidence, because it has been holding similar code since May, but nevertheless it should probably be reworked. I've added an exception for bots and for people editing their own talkpage. I think perhaps some of the problems (not all) could be solved by adding tests for word boundaries (so that "skyscraper" doesnt match "crap") but it seems that it's not possible to use regex tools like "\b" (used to catch word boundaries) with a "ccnorm" statement, and switching it to regex would mean giving up being case-independent (as far as I know). I'll keep working on it though. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I received a request to userfy the deleted version of previously deleted article, which has since been recreated. I cannot find instructions for how to userfy. The closest I could find is instructions how to restore a deleted article, but restoration and moving to Userspace would not seem to work here, since that would seem to compromise the current version of the article. Can you point me to the appropriate instructions? Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What you need to do is:

Delete the current article
Restore only the revisions of the old article
Move the restored article to userspace
Restore the article you deleted

If you'd rather not, I'm happy to do it. If you do decide to do it, I will keep an eye on things to make sure it goes OK. WJBscribe (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I have to delete the current article and then restore it make it work? That makes me a bit nervous for my first tool usage. It might be safer if you do it and I track your steps. Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure no problem, now done. It is one of the more complicated uses of the tools. It's a bit of a hack to get around the limitation that you can't move part of a page. Deleted edits stay where they are when you move a page, so you make sure that any revisions you don't want to move are deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I followed what you did. I am sure I would have messed up. Thank you for your help. It does seem that now the previously deleted history is visible, but that seems to be the result of the follow up request, rather than the original userfication, so if that is correct then I understood your moves. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

wow your contributions are epic

therefore to offset the epicness of your edits i give you a kitten

andyzweb (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

andyzweb (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, thanks. How kind, if unexpected. I like kittens... WJBscribe (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Defender 911

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Defender 911 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, ♠TomasBat 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for having completed my global account

Many thanks to all clerks who have worked to complete my global account and so given me access to English Wiki. I preventively apologize for the scholar English in which I'll have to write on your pages, beginning with this one ! Regards. --ThF (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Help:Interwiki redirect demo listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Interwiki redirect demo. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Interwiki redirect demo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Crat stats

Hi Will. I've just taken the liberty of updating User:NoSeptember/crat stats for February's activity. Since I've never touched that page before, could you quickly check my work and let me know if I've messed anything up? Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure its fine but I will make a note to take a look when I have some time. WJBscribe (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I understand you're busy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

parole

Didn't get paroled like you were hoping... anyways, hope everything is ok for ya...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

He he. I'm fine - tired but fine. Just very busy at work and tending to hit the pillow as soon as I get home. I'm going on holiday for a couple of weeks over Easter, so weekend of the 17th is when work should be less busy and I'll be back from my hols.

Just seen how depressingly few admins have been appointed this month. :( WJBscribe (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While you're around, Will, could you weigh in briefly here? Thanks in advance. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Meetup in Cambridge, 27 March

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you - just in case you can make it. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible move of the William Beebe rape section to new bio article

Hello, I've posted an RfC about a controversial topic. I believe that you've participated in discussions about this before. Please participate dispassionately. NYCRuss ☎ 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I acted as a mediator in relation to this dispute in the past. I have no personal opinion as to how the subject should be treated but hope the question can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. WJBscribe (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Subpages

Hello. Just to say, the old configuration wasn't a mistake. I figured that since SUL was deprecated, we could just leave it as a subpage of Simple. Either way – the location of historical pages is not of great importance. Hoping you're well, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm good thanks. Getting a feel for the new layout, but really just passing through. Hope everything's going well around here. WJBscribe (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about breiter -> ber user name ursupation

Hello, thanks for helping out with administration. I have a question about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Breiter_.E2.86.92_Ber which I've posted there. I hope this was the right place, I am posting here to make double sure. Maybe you can unlock "ber" again and then ursupate it from breiter, so I can then merge breiter and its changelog with the global account. Thanks in advance, Breiter (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Fixed. WJBscribe (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Will. FYI: I've sent an e-mail your way. AGK 11:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and get back to you. WJBscribe (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Move war continues

You commented on the Outline/List move war between User:Verbal and I, at User_talk:The_Transhumanist/Archive_24#Further issue, and there you stated "Should anyone who has been previous warned move such a page without clear consensus, then I think blocks should be considered as a response."

I've refrained from renaming Lists to Outlines, except for reverting Verbal's attempts to snipe the names of outlines. He won't listen to reason, as he returns to his tactics every few weeks.

I believe his actions are a clear violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

I wish the move war to end, and I have been working on the RfC as much as my limited time these days allows. It is a lot better than it was, but still isn't ready to go live.

Please intervene again.

The Transhumanist 03:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at User Talk:Verbal, but I should probably mention it here. I don't really grasp the rationale for blocking Verbal. He hasn't edited in the past 6 days as best I can tell, so there is no active disruption being prevented. If the point is to prevent future disruption, then a better approach might be to tell him that he'll be blocked the next time he moves an Outline article. Otherwise it just looks like you're punishing him for edits he made almost a week ago and has not repeated since, IMHO. MastCell ^Talk 23:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

...and although I don't like to undermine my fellow admins, since you're unavailable, I have unblocked, and asked for a review of my actions here. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise. It has long been accepted that admins reviewing unblock requests should do so with a fresh pair of eyes, especially when the blocking admin is unavailable. I am sorry that I wasn't around to deal with the later discussion of my block and that I may have misjudged the position vis-à-vis Verbal. WJBscribe (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Outline of festivals under assault by Verbal

Dear WJBscribe,

There are aspects of this situation you are not aware of. Verbal has been relentlessly assaulting outlines for many months.

Verbal is playing games, and is using insidious tactics. Please look at what he has done to the Outline of festivals article - an example of what he has been doing to outlines since before Oct 2009.

First he converted it to a more generic list (removing the formatting specific to the Outline of Knowledge set of outlines), and then he blanked the page completely with a redirect. So...

Rather than take outlines to AfD, he has resorted to other tactics for deleting them. Here's a description of his approach on Outline of festivals:

1) He removed most of the lead section, even though it had GFDL accreditation. Previously before the GFDL notes were being added to the outlines, his reason for removing the leads was "remove copyvio". To accomodate his objection, we started adding GFDL notes to the edit summaries. Now his reason is so vague as not to be a reason at all. In this edit he also changed the reference to the article as an outline to that of a list - he's trying to get rid of outlines and convert them to his strict definition of a list. Almost every edit of his to outlines reflects this. He's trying to shut down the Outline project unilaterally, without consensus.

2) There were some lists of historical festivals in the History section. He removed the entire section, citing that they were lists. The contents of those lists were historical in nature and fit the section. Besides this, outlines are branched lists - lists are perfect extensions of outlines as they serve as additional branches to the outline. There is no valid reason to remove them. But Verbal doesn't even give a reason - his edit summary is so vague that it doesn't mean anything - he didn't say why lists are inappropriate.

3) He removed the references section and the entire external links section and the outline footer. Part of his genericization effort. All outlines have the the latter two features, except the outlines he has removed them from.

4) He added tags that really don't apply. The article did have source citations, but he removed them. When challenged on an unsourced tag he has placed, he stated that he challenges every entry in the outline. In this outline, most of the links obviously pertain to the subject "festivals", and no source is needed to confirm this. He's just being difficult. Notability doesn't apply, since "festivals" is a notable subject. "Outline" in the title pertains to the article's format, and is not part of the subject's name. The same principal applies to all lists, including outlines. For example, "List of sharks" isn't about a list of sharks, it is a list of sharks.

5) Then he blanked the whole article, replacing it with a redirect.

Even though there are editors who oppose his genericization of outlines, Verbal continues to do it. He strikes every few weeks.

Please intervene in Outline of festivals.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Outline of rights

I'm trying to revamp the Outline of rights article.

Then Verbal comes along and deletes it by redirecting it.

The consensus is not going his way on the talk page, but that doesn't usually disuade him from disrupting the development of an outline article.

Please intervene.

The Transhumanist 23:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Verbal

User:Verbal continues to attack the outlines.

Now he's trying to divert traffic from it by removing links to its main page (which is a subpage of Portal:Contents, which (along with its subpages) was designed by collaborative effort.

he removed the link to the outline collection from the contents page, claiming at talk:Outline of rights that they were too large of a change to the contents system and that because of that he has removed them (from the contents system).

There has been a link to the outline collection (under its various names) on the contents page since April 2005. Verbal is being disruptive in his attempts to remove links to the outline contents page.

He also removed its link from the {{Contents pages (header bar)}}, the main contents system navigation menu bar.

I believe Verbal is violating Wikipedia:tendentious editing, and I humbly request that you investigate to verify whether what he is doing violates that guideline or not.

The Transhumanist 01:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As the result of my earlier intervention shows all too clearly, I think you would do better having a more active administrator look into these issues. Aside from the large amount of material that needs to be looked into, my often not being around to follow up on admin actions is less than ideal. I will try and find time to look into what has been happening, and opine. But I don't propose to take further enforcement actions unless I am able to be significantly more active on the project. WJBscribe (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)