User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 27

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 25

User edit warring my comments on Talk:Aspartame_controversy

User Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has reverted my comments on the Talk:Aspartame_controversy page numerous times, giving a bogus reason (the text I quote there is from an Hawaiian Government document). You can see the reverts here. He won't take it to BLP/N because he knows he has no case. Please stop him. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if this was a problem, WJBScribe could not take action against me (unless it was urgent, but that is unlikely) as he is involved (see above). Try taking it to BLPN where it can be reviewed. At least two editors have removed your comments as BLP issues. I saw this post as I have this page watchlisted. Verbal chat 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right Verbal: there is no rule that says an administrator can only take enforcement action once against any given user (even if later consensus shows the actions they took were in error - for which I apologise). I think to label me as "involved", especially given that this matter apparently has nothing to do with outlines, is to stretch the definition of that term beyond its natural meaning.

In any event, TickleMeister, I think you would be well advised to refer this matter to a wider pool of users and administrators - say at WP:BLPN or WP:ANI - who are more active than I am at present. Approaching me, when I am the last person to have blocked Verbal might give the impression that your selection is based on forum shopping (because you think I am more likely than others to take action against Verbal) and aggravate matters. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I appreciate it. I hope we can work constructively together in future. Unfortunately, TM has been blocked for BLP violations (as he was warned). Verbal chat 19:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I need a new keyboard - last edit summary should have been "Thanks" Verbal chat 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List of people who died on their birthday

Back in 2007 you deleted a list with this name. While I think it might make a good list, I can imagine problems, particularly as it would consist of people whose only relation to each other is a random event. However, this may be considered a NOTABLE random event. was there a discussion around this deleted article? I wont recreate without having first heard the whole story, and then only if i can create a persuasive argument.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died on their birthdays (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died on their birthdays? LadyofShalott 05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RFM

Thanks for keeping on top of RFM. You and Sunray both held the page together nicely. That's me back now, but if you'd like to continue the good work do feel free :). Regards, AGK 00:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1

I know it's been all of 20 seconds since you closed that RFA, but might I please ask you to write a closing statement for it? I don't think that it was a straight-up promote by any standards, and was leaning more the other way if anything. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it too and was thinking about it and was leaning to not promote, but I can't say WJB was out of the discretion zone here either. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well he might have discounted oppose 23, but only he can tell us for sure... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a closing statement. WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As a neutral I was a bit surprised (though not saddened) by this close. I'd have weighed the issues with a lack of experience and skill communicating pretty high. Certainly reasonable though, lots of people had faith in his ability to do the job and not mess it up and that counts for a lot. Time will tell. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the rationale Scribe posted is symptomatic of a recent trend among bureaucrats to be too dismissive of legitimate opposition, while weighing unexplained supports too heavily. Just one editor's opinion. Townlake (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not with mine! :) Connormah^talk 05:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I think I supported yours - I know I was surprised you were given a "no" on 'crat discretion. RFA = weird process. Townlake (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Townlake, WJB said that he had weighted concerns about his lack of article writing experience lower than other concerns, not just a general lack of experience. There is an important difference, and WJB has made that clear in his closing statement. --Deskana (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates that bureaucrat discussions should be more of a common practice than they are currently, especially when an RfA is at the lower end of the discretionary area. I disagree with this particular close, indeed I agree with Townlake's comment about being too dismissive of legitimate opposition. I don't criticise WJB for it, but I think the lack of discussion between 'crats leads to inconsistent results- for example Connormah 2 which, numerically, was closer to promotion than this one, but was closed as no consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Bsadowski1 has already, in my opinion, shown to be a net-positive, and that whatever he does with the tools, he will continue to be one. As far as I'm concerned, his blocks and deletions are good. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to to support the decision, but keep a little perspective. Just because he hasn't botched the job in the first hour doens't mean we declare his adminship a net positive.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So far his correct use of the tools far outweigh any misuse or mistakes made, particularly since he hasn't made any mistakes or misused the tools. As long as that continues, he is a net positive to this project. The comments here objecting to the promotion give me the impression that they're expecting him to mess up... I can't help but hypothesize what's going through the minds of some of the opposers... "He got lucky, but he's going to fuck something up, I'm sure of it." The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I do any action, I carefully think about it before doing it. I don't get why I shouldn't be a net positive. --Bsa dow ski1 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're a negative either. I'm just saying to paraphrase numerous football coaches, just because he(you) had a good first practice, lets not put him(you) in the hall of fame quite yet.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we'll just have to watch and wait, won't we? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was telling you.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not about how well the user does after the promotion, but whether the consensus of the RfA was correctly evaluated at the time of RfA's closure. HJ Mitchell make a good point that in cases where the outcome is likely to be a close call, having a crat chat would be useful. I was also surprised by the outcome of this RfA - it still seems to me that the weight of consensus was leaning against the promotion. Actually, I was also surprised by the closure of the Connormah 2 RfA; I think I was in the oppose column there but looking at the state of that RfA at the time of its closure, I think it ought to have been closed as successful. Having crat chats in close cases like these is useful, both for more accurate determination of consensus and for greater consistency, particularly so that future RfA candidates better know what to expect. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to please all of the people all of the time. If it can be said with certainty that users with x% support will pass/fail RfA, users complain that RfA is a vote rather than a discussion and that this is bad. If bureaucrats analyse the discussions and determine consensus according (leading to different outcomes for those with the same % support), results are criticised for being inconsistent and that this is bad. I suspect bureaucrats tend to be resigned to someone telling us we are wrong whatever we do, but (for the record) I am loathe to "dismiss" any opposition, though I do think examples of misconduct are weightier concerns than general worries about inexperience. WJBscribe (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about not being able to "please all of the people all of the time"; that's a straw man. The issue is undervaluing opposition in this specific RFA that the folks above generally found materially more compelling than you did. The result is fine, but the process here was flawed and could be a learning point going forward. Obviously, you disagree, which is not surprising. Townlake (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending prots enabling

Earlier today you changed Reese Witherspoon to require 'autoconfirmed' status before accepting edits without pending them. Going by the logs, it was part of a handful of pending-changes protections you applied within a few minutes of each other. As far as I can see it didn't derive from an RFPP or talk page request. Please would you let me know your specific rationale for the Witherspoon BLP change?

Please place any replies here (keeps stuff together). I'll check back, so notifying/talkback isn't necessary. Thanks, Will. 92.30.106.114 (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I considered a number of articles on my watchlist for inclusion in the pending changes trial, mostly BLPs or articles I know attrack persistent low level vandalism. The Witherspoon article is a BLP which attracts fairly regular vandalism, including an edit within the last month which had to be deleted. The pending change trial allows a "softer option" for protecting BLPs than outright semi-protection and the Witherspoon article is, in my opinion, a good candidate. I think the protection is well within the spirit of WP:PEND and WP:BLP. WJBscribe (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a prominent article, drawing 160+ watchers and 6k daily views. Thanks, was interested as it didn't seem to be by request and you hadn't edited it before. Going by what's been said, "Reese Witherspoon" in your consideration is a target of unrelenting vandalism whose frequency is such that page protection is needed, and the applied setting's impact upon certain editors is sound and proportionate. How different it is submitting an edit through the editsemiprot template compared to through this isn't for me to say. I'm not sure whether I agree with your last sentence. Anyways, cheers for answering. 92.30.106.114 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar Awarded!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In recognition of a brave decision by Bureaucrat WJBScribe to promote Bsadowski to Administrator, I award you with this token of my esteem. Working closely as I do with with this new admin on an anti-vandalism IRC channel, I can attest to Brian's fine work blocking sockpuppets who would otherwise be damaging the encyclopedia. A gutsy yet thoughtful call on your part! Again, I salute you, and my best wishes to you always. Jusdafax 05:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax took the words right out of my mouth. I've been meaning to do... something nice, but looks like he beat me to it about a month ago. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you on ANI. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted. WJBscribe (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Usurps and global accounts

FYI re: Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Completed/21#Velela → Velella, I don't think the global account needs to be deleted prior to fulfilled a usurp of this nature (anymore - this may have been the case in the past). As far as I know, the only reason to delete the global account is if the user wanted the "new" home wiki to be en.wiki. –xeno^talk 13:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You may have a clearer idea than me about this - but I think renaming an account to a name already taken for an SUL, where the person you are renaming does not control the SUL, is problematic. How would the renamed person change the password to the global account if they do not know what it currently is? I agree that it wasn't technically needed but it seems to me that the result would have been rather unsatisfactory had the global account not been deleted. The stewards appeared to agree with me that this needed to be done. WJBscribe (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I think I was confused when I wrote the message - for some reason I though the requesting user controlled the global account. Sorry 'bout that. –xeno^talk 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no - because the target name had been created relatively recently, it was automatically a SUL even though it had made no edits. When that scenario comes up, I think we do need to have the global account deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On that subject, what are your thoughts on this (global accounts being created as a default). I think it's a bad idea, because of people who register accounts and never use them. Multiply that by all the other projects and the list of available names will quickly diminish. I guess if stewards don't mind deleting dormant global accounts though, it's not entirely problematic, but still... –xeno^talk 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this one should be granted? The user with the best claim is inactive since 2008. Note the target user was notified a month ago, so it can be processed immediately if you think it's ok. –xeno^talk 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that one is in smack bang in the discretionary area. Happy for you to make the call. It seems mad to me to be creating new SUL conflicts, but if Kenosis understands the potential future implications, I have no objections to the rename going ahead. WJBscribe (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a followup to your message to me the other day - if you let the bot mark your usurp completions, it'll stay open for someone else to pick up the pieces if you only go halfway =) –xeno^talk 14:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comments, tweaks, etc. @ Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines#Handling SUL conflicts. –xeno^talk 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. WJBscribe (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I've referenced your decision in A3RO here: [1] (also [2], [3]). –xeno^talk 13:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of the discussion - my reason for discounting the vote was that it added nothing to the discussion and appeared deliberately disruptive. Whilst the block confirmed that others were of the same opinion, I didn't strike it because of the block.
Whether users blocked during RfA should automatically have their contributions discounted is a different matter. Generally I think I would prefer that they weren't - if someone has made a thoughtful and meaningful comment is later blocked for, say, a 3RR violation I don't think that affects that validity of their contribution to the discussion. My only worry is that those people can no longer change edit the RfA to indicate that they have changed their minds (which is the reason why votes from Arbs who resign mid-case are discounted). WJBscribe (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi WJBscribe, I sent you an E-mail. Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the house that Jack built

If you please, may I invite you to consider investing some time and thought reviewing a few paragraphs which use the Schengen Agreement as an exemplar.

Perhaps you also know someone else who might be more interested in this kind of narrowly-focused editing problem?

My personal interest is in developing neutral, dispute-resistant and clear foundational paradigms and templates for discussing edits to unequal treaties and other topics which are inherently controversial. Examples of unequal treaties include

the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876 (Treaty of Ganghwa)
the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1882 (Treaty of Chemulpo)
the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 (Eulsa Treaty).

Am I correct in assuming that you know the children's story about the house that Jack built? --Tenmei (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigDom 2

May I ask, considering the rapid trend of the RFA downwards in the last 24 hours especially, why you chose not to extend this RFA for a longer period of time? NW (Talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an RfA "trending downwards" is a reason to extend the discussion beyond 7 days. Save in exceptional circumstances, RfAs run for 7 days. I noted that some raised the fact that it was a US holiday weekend - but to me that argument was rather weak given that there are thousand of elegible participants across the world for whom it was not a holiday. It wasn't a scenario where evidence had been adduced at the last minute - the BLP concerns for at least half the duration of the RfA (it was not a last minute concern that those taking part in the discussion had not had the opportunity to consider). I would also point out that nowhere was there a suggestion that BigDom had ever violated BLP policies or that he would interfere with other admins' enforcement of that policy, which would - of course - have rendered those concerns more serious. WJBscribe (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Quoting the main RFA page, "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer." Scribe, if these aren't exceptional circumstances, what do you consider exceptional circumstances? Townlake (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained, I saw nothing exceptional about that RfA. An example of an RfA extended by a bureaucrat (Taxman) in exceptional circumstances is Cla68's RfA, where new grounds of opposition surfaced only 3 hours before the close of a unanimous RfA. It was ultimately unsuccessful. It should also be noted that Taxman's decision to extend that RfA has not been without criticism. Other cases where RfAs have been extended have included cases where canvassing has taken place and an extension of time was felt needed to counterbalance any bias that may have been generated (i.e. by "watering down" the canvassed comments). WJBscribe (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion, but your reasoning is reasonable. Thanks for providing the insight. Townlake (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello - you deleted a page on Rachelle waterman - Im new to wikipedia - can you tell me why that was deleted? thanks , regards stefan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefancooper (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

MedCom

Thanks so much for the MedCom nomination support, I look forward to helping out the committee and working with you. --WGFinley (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

CHU Question

Hi WJBscribe - I noticed that you renamed User:Lotsofinterviews but per this it appears the user is still editing under their old username today. Any ideas how that happened? Thanks. 7 23:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Disregard. I see you are busy IRL so discussing here. 7 00:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Need your input re. an unblock request

Hi WJB! It's been a while :) Anyways - to business. Can I direct your attention to User_talk:Counter-revolutionary, where an editor is requesting unblock after almost two and a half years. It's a block that you carried out. Could you possibly read through the discussion there and comment. As checkuser involved in the original case, I'd actually like to unblock the myself at this stage but am deferring to you first, as you were the blocking admin - Alison ^❤ 18:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Allie. It has indeed - we should catch up sometime soon. As to the unblock, I confess I have little memory of this particular block. Having read through the discussions then and now, I am happy for the block to be lifted if you are. Best, Will 20:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will :) Looks like neither of us are here as much as we used to be. I'm finding RL stuff - family and work - are 'getting in the way', and I kinda like that!! Anyways - checkuser looks clear for C-R, too, so with your assent here as the blocking admin, will go ahead and unblock. Rest assured that he'll be being watched closely! Thanks again & good to hear you're still about! :) - Alison ^❤ 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Counter-revolutionary

Hello WJBscribe. Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Alison ^❤ 09:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My email

Hi W, did you get my email. I would appreciate a reply, even it is to say that you can't reply. Peter Damian III (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I did. I see I have quite a lot of correspondence to catch up on. I will respond once I've had a chance to read everything through. WJBscribe (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

IRC logs

Any idea how I could get a copy of the logs referred to here [4]. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.187.54 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not my practice to log conversations on IRC, so I am afraid I cannot help you. WJBscribe (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)