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.
I saw you closed a few requests at WP:CHUU. For as long as I've been there, it's just been me and xeno, so I thought I'd say hi :p demize(t · c)01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I hadn't realised Xeno had been left to hold the fort single handedly for a while. The rest of us should try and pitch in more, especially given his new responsibilities elsewhere. WJBscribe(talk)13:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I emailed you many times as you must know. You say above that you cannot access the IRC logs. Yet you remembered enough about the details of the conversation - for example that it was on December 7th. As I said in the emails, I am (not unreasonably) asking for an explanation of why you said one thing in an email (that you knew nothing on that date) and yet apparently contradict yourself elsewhere? I would appreciate a reply. Peter Damian 86.144.28.134 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear, you need to read this [1]. FT2 explicitly mentions you by name (i.e. your user name), so there cannot possibly be any confusion. 86.144.28.134 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London
For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.
I'd appreciate, next time, that you discuss things with me before you misconstrue my position. That I have expressed no small amount of frustration and a few choice words for the vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread is unrelated to the merit of the desysop. If you had taken the time to actually read what I'v been saying — or took a moment of your time to check on the facts — you would have known that I came down hard on that thread because it had nothing to do with the merits of the desysop and everything to do with process wonkery. — Coren(talk)23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You should read some of what you've been posting lately and think about how it looks to a detached third party. You sound extremely angry and tense. If that's the case, take a step back - "vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread" is a ridiculous comment and unworthy of you. A number of well respected contributors expressed their concerns about a decision. Instead of calmly engaging in the discussion, you fanned the flame. Your posts stand out in that thread as having added a lot more heat than light and yet you are the one to archive it "with extreme prejudice"? Your hostility here only reinforces my concern that you (and maybe some of your colleagues) have taken very entrenched views on this matter. Please think about recusing - let cooler heads deal with this. I post infrequently these days, maybe you should give some thought to why I thought your comments sufficiently worrying that I wanted to speak up. WJBscribe(talk)00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You're correct that I am furious, but you're entirely mistaken if you think that this in any way related to the original decision or that any part of that animosity is directed at Rod.
I'm entirely willing to extend a vast amount of agf your way — I'm pretty damn sure that you did this infrequent post because you are, somehow, convinced that Rod got a raw deal. I can guarantee that out of all the "concerns" expressed about the decision on the AC/N thread, maybe one in ten actually cared one whit about Rod at all. Of those, maybe one or two actually had enough information about the actual situation to make a mistaken guess about the rest.
We did everything we could to prevent Rod from being drawn into more crap then he could handle, but there is only so much we can do to protect someone when the mob pounces on the opportunity to sacrifice them on the public square for a shot at the Evul Arbcomz. Rod is getting a raw deal: he's being used by the community as a weapon against the committee, and he's going to end up being the only one paying the price for the "community"'s desire for blood. — Coren(talk)12:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The Community's desire for blood Coren? Could you tell me exactly how much of that I, or Heim, or Sandstein, or Prodego, or TenOfAllTrades, or John, or WJBscribe have for the Arbitration Committee? Last I checked, we were all administrators in good standing, I am for now still an ArbCom clerk, and many of us voted for you last election. If you can't tell the difference between concern that the Arbitration Committee might be overreaching its powers and being out for blood and using someone as a weapon, then you have certainly lost perspective. NW(Talk)14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's the problem isn't it? I actually know the fact underlying this case, I know why the decision was taken, and why it was taken off-wiki. I know that the only one who will suffer from this case having been made public is Rod. There will be nothing gained from the public case, that couldn't have been done with a rational discussion of whichever failings of process there might have been in a manner unconnected to Rod — quite the opposite: the specific issue will obscure and confuse any wider point that might have been made about how the committee should go about in the future in such cases.
How else am I supposed to interpret this? We've unanimously been trying to tell you that Rod — and only Rod — will be harmed by exposing this. And yet, despite our repeated warnings and invitation to continue the discussion about the general process elsewhere and in another context, some people insisted that Rod should be hung out to dry in order to — I don't know — "expose Arbcom"? Punish it?
If that's not it, then please explain it to me; because right now it looks like either you (collectively) don't care one bit about Rod if it means scoring some points against the committee; or that you honestly believe that all 18 of us are lying bastards. — Coren(talk)18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Coren, you were correct about some things, including that to allow the discussion to continue in the context of the RH&E desysop would be detrimental. But, as with WJB, my perception is that you have lost the ability to act impartially in this matter. How do you reconcile your terse tone, at RFAR, WT:AC/N, here, and elsewhere, and such comments as "You disgust me" about the many experienced editors who have commented in the thread, with your above "[willingness] to extend a vast amount of agf your way"? Your behaviour throughout the unfolding of these events has been, in my view, uncharacteristic of you, and that is disconcerting. I think you should give thought to abstaining from activity as an arbitrator in the RH&E case. AGK [•] 12:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
(I think...) for closing the RfA. Having left school about six years ago (OK - I worked there), I didn't think I'd be going back to school again. Ah well. Peridon (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Bureaucratship
How is it that there are 33 other bureaucrats and your are the only one that gets down and dirty in RFA nominations. By the by ho and when did you get the Bureaucrat flag on your account. Gabesta449edits♦chat23:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
He did relinquish his 'crathood for a period of time as well. But of the 33 other 'crats only a handful of them actually perform 'crat duties on a regular basis.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!07:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Request
I have received your notice and thank you for your part. I am fully prepared to know a thing is not possible. I would like to ask however, if a final post may be appended. It is effort that has missed the close, but is best for inclusion, Please advise If this final post can be effected with your assistance? My76Strat (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question. The name I use as global name is already taken in en.wiki, but the user just did 3 edits and more than 7 years ago. My question is if it is possible use that name for my account in en.wiki. Thanks. --210.165.148.173 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Newyorkbrad seems to be very busy with ArbCom activities, so if you're still interested in closing the current poll at WP:PCRFC, your help would be most welcome. The consensus seemed to be having it open for 10-14 days, so it's plenty ready to be decided on, and at this point the conclusion is pretty obvious. All we need is someone otherwise involved to close the current phase of the discussion. Steven Walling at work06:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Closing the RfC
Hi. Please let me know (either here or on my page or in an e-mail) whether you're ready to proceed on closing that RfC. I've been dunned for a status report, and I see that just above so have you, so we probably need to get on with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Steven, Brad - my apologies for being MIA so long! A family emergency and work travel have kept me away. Back now - will discuss way forwards with Brad. WJBscribe(talk)17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the update (and I hope everything is okay at home) WJBScribe. Feel free to ping me today in IRC or on-wiki if you need anything. Steven Walling at work20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage Feezo so that we may reach those issues. --Tenmei (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In part, I am writing to you because of your constructive comments here.
Please help me think through a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war. I propose to use words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:
This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page
diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Wikipedia -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))
You're welcome. Speedy tagging is becoming all too trigger happy - not hard to imagine why new users are being put off if someone new to the site similarly follows a red link, and decides helpfully to start an article and is reward with a speedy tag for their efforts... WJBscribe(talk)23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings
Hi, hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally been shamed into creating User:WereSpielChequers/Recall (Pedro named me in his, so I realised I really ought to have one myself). Would you be willing to be on the list? If so just edit it and move your name out of the hidden bit. ϢereSpielChequers20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar.
This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past.
It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
no bullying
Please do not bully people. You put a nasty warning on my page but not on the vandals page.
I wrote some good stuff with references. I discussed it on the Barack Obama talk page.
Fat&Happy and DD2K did nothing like that. They just remove material. I have a close to perfect explanation while irrelevant things have no place in the article. They are incapable of responding intelligently. Yet you threaten me. That is not very nice of you. Please explain this to me. Why are you threatening me but don't tell the other people that they should be discussing improvements like I did.
Jack Paterno (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You need to cool your approach down and stop accusing editors of vandalism, bullying etc. Your edit warring on Barack Obama is disruptive and a number of editors seem to take issue with those edits. Until you have established on the talkpage that your changes are good ones, you can't just redo them. If your revert the article again, you will be blocked for breaching the three revert rule. WJBscribe(talk)22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Listen, if you want to be neutral, here's what you should do.
You should also write to DD2K and tell him that it is far more diplomatic and productive if he would discuss his opposition. Writing "For Pete's Sake" is very aggressive. It is not much better that "Fuck you, I will make it my way".
If you are neutral, people respect you more.
How would you like it if you wrote some reasonable stuff and I removed it and added an edit summary of "For Pete's Sake" or "Fuck you, I will make it my way". Jack Paterno (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you too. We probably won't hear a peep again from that account(given the usual SOP of this user), but there seems to be a never ending supply of others. Thanks again. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Star Trek XII
I feel the two articles should be seperate, rather than one so the new one can differ from the old. Do you mind re-deleting that restoration? RAP (talk) 15:22 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do. There should not be two articles on the same subject. What should have happened is that the old article should have been un-redirected, and then new content added to it, rather than a new article created. Now that has been spotted, it is appropriate to now merge the two histories. WJBscribe(talk)15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
That's my point, that article was redirected to the article i had started (i didn't know that already existed). Why was it restored, we could of just refound the info. I had the previous article redirect deleted to make room for this one, which i planned to redirect. RAP (talk) 15:34 1 December 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't split content at different locations - all the content about this topic should be one article, particularly as there appears to have been useful sourced content in the old article that wasn't used in the new one. I realise it was accidental that we ended up with the edit history split in two places, but that's what history merges are for. I really don't understand why you'd want the two histories to be separate. WJBscribe(talk)15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What did that version have that isn't covered in the later made one? I asked it to be deleted so i could make the new (and better) version redirect over to Star Trek XII as a temporary local. User:Daskill's version didn't need restoration at all and should be re-deleted. RAP (talk) 2:19 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you could have asked for it to be deleted if you didn't know it existed... Anyway, we don't delete "old versions" of articles to make way for new, arguably better ones. That's not how Wikipedia works. If I wanted to improve Elephant, I wouldn't do it by creating another article and trying to persuade everyone that my version is better and ask that the current one be deleted. I still don't understand why you want the old revision of this particular article deleted and can't think of any Wikipedia policy that would allow (let alone require) the deletion of the older revisions of the article. WJBscribe(talk)16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The main reason is that i want to keep the two histories seperate. There's a two year gap inbetween. And it shows on the talk page that the article endured two AFD's. RAP (talk) 14:11 8 December 2011 (UTC)
That's supposed to show on the talkpage - it has had two AfDs. Even if I did delete the old revisions (which, as I have explained above, I don't think Wikipedia policies allow me to do), it would still be appropriate to refer to both on the talkpage. The current state of affairs - all the history of this article in one place - seems entirely satisfactory and in keeping with usual Wikipedia practice. WJBscribe(talk)17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
RFA closure
Thank you for your close of my recent successful RFA. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The following chunk from the 2010 WP:BN discussion is also interesting:
@Betacommand, you've stated a few times you are under no restrictions, however WP:RESTRICT has a section listed for User:Betacommand with an expiry time of 'indefinite'. Has this been vacated? –xenotalk 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Im not sure why that was placed there as those are not actual editing restrictions. Rather the conclusion of an arbcom case. Other than stressing that I follow standard policies, with that case there where no specific editing restrictions put into place. ΔT The only constant 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I think that your unblock of La goutte de pluie was a really bad decision given that the discussion of this at WP:AN has only just gotten started, there's no consensus on it one way or the other and the blocking admin is yet to comment. In particular, your statement in the unblock message that "the admin was involved" definitely does not reflect the views of most of the editors who've commented so far. I think that you should reinstate the block pending the outcome of the discussion, as it looks a lot like wheel warring at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to read up on wheel warring, because this isn't it. I undid a block in clear violation of policy - the admin blocked an editor for restoring a non-vandal edit he had reverted [2][3]. He then got into an argument with the blocked user on her talkpage and even removed her ability to edit her talkapge [4]. Not only was the first block poor but, in the circumstances, it was clear any further action should be by another admin. Neverteless, he went ahead and blocked for 1 month in response to further conduct in relation to the same subject matter. That's unambiguously involved. As to reblocking, unless there is further disruption, there is no reason to reinstate a bad block. WJBscribe(talk)01:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm disappointed about the premature closure. I agree that the procedure was unlikely to succeed, but seeing as the count was 8/24/3 within 16 hours of opening, and 7/5/4 since then, with many reverses and indents, I'm very unhappy that, especially given the holiday weekend, the close occurred with no notice. I have no argument with your decision to close; as a trusted crat, I respect you are doing what's best for the pedia, but I disagree that there was little chance of success. Many of the opposes were of the "pile on/I haven't really investigated the candidate" type. Given the small amount of questions asked me, and immediate rush to judgement based almost entirely on two non-admin closes for which I was never questioned (and had reasonable response), I was planning to ask the procedure run full length. I wish I'd been consulted before such a close, but perhaps my opinion isn't relevant or applicable. To be absolutely clear, I'm not disappointed the run was unsuccessful; I'm disappointed that so few wikipedians were able to participate (over a holiday weekend) and that even though I'd requested the chance for the procedure to stay open, to accept questions (I had refuted much of what was first brought against me), the close was premature, IMHO. BusterD (talk)
RFAs aren't really a good place for feedback - editor reviews and such tend to generate much more contructive commentary. I'm afraid your RfA isn't going to succeed and I think this is a good point to walk away, hence my close. If you would really like it reopened, I am willing to do so, but I really doubt you'd find the another few days a positive experience. WJBscribe(talk)02:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like you to reopen the procedure. I'd like you to make a statement or flag the procedure that the candidate wishes the procedure to run full-length. I hope this isn't pointy, but I think I was piled on early and I have a chance to make a comeback. If I'm wrong, I owe you a root beer. BusterD (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Up to you - I wouldn't normally do this as I don't think there's benefit to the 'pedia in requests running longer than they need to, but I'll make an exception given the festive season and all. Best of luck. WJBscribe(talk)02:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Buster, this is a lousy call on your part. You state here that you "refuted" the notion that you didn't correctly assess community consensus in the poorly-closed AFDs. Yet here you are, defying community consensus -- which seems clear to everyone but you -- on your RFA. Twice now you've complained about community volunteers who are only trying to save other volunteers' time by closing a process that has clearly served its actual purpose. Townlake (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I respect Townlake's opinion, and it's possible this may have a negative impact on any future run. In my reply to Townlake, I put forward a reasonable rationale, still undiscussed, as to why the non consensus close was within the acceptable range. In my reply to Kudpung, I punctured the assertion I'd been warned for 3RR, pointed out that not editing the way that user does is not a valid rationale for opposing, demonstrated a recent track record of citation at a high level of competency, while expanding explanation for my closure choice on MLI. In my reply to Colonel Warden, I admitted and corrected the mistaken close on Lord's Bank. Virtually all the opposes which follow are based on the flawed analysis I've discussed here. Several users have indented and/or switched their !votes since that time. In view of the trend, and in view of the fact the entire process to date has occurred over two of the most important family days in the English speaking world (which speaks to the narrow participation to date), I believe I have every right to expect the trend to continue in my favor. I'm not at this point defying community consensus because it hasn't yet been adequately measured. One non-admin ignored my request that the procedure not be snowballed, and a well-intention bureaucrat also chose to close without consulting. I respect your disagreeing and acknowledge this may turn some editors against me. I would hope editors investigate each candidate and not merely depend on the first few opposes to guide the discussion, as so many have seem to have done, by their own words. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I have chosen to withdraw my candidacy, and take this as a lesson learned. I have posted a request to close at the Bureaucrat noticeboard. In retrospect, last night I should have asked you to reopen the procedure long enough for me to post a withdrawal statement, but my self will led me to choose differently. I apologize for any hardship or extra effort this may have caused. Thanks for your good common sense, reasonable words, and your willingness to try to see things my way. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Whistling
In case my ANI post was unclear:
I do not care if an admin blocks someone for e.g. "whistling on a Tuesday". It's still not appropriate to unblock it, without consensus.
Your unblock of LGDP is one of the most myopic and naive administrative actions I've seen on Wikipedia recently. You really should investigate things much more thoroughly and understand the context before you take actions like this. Reverting the continuation of previous disruption does not make an admin involved and apparently you can't recognize even blatant pointy editing and manipulation of the community. Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Request for help on some RFD's by
Hello, I noticed that you've gotten involved in issues with User:Toddst1 who has been aggressive at going after other contributors. Recently I have felt harassed by the same individual who has recommended nearly every article that I've written for RFD. I have been able to get one RFD reversed for John Torboss Underhill. I've made progress towards getting another lifted on Estelle Skidmore Doremus and the Underhill Society of America. There are still several more articles with RFD's still in place to focus on. I don't disagree with the need to make improvements on any of these articles that I've posted, and have demonstrated my willingness to continue doing so. Still to have so many RFD's is discouraging. I value Wikipedia as a tool for research and have shown my appreciation by improving a number of articles unrelated to my primary interests (see Saint Nicholas Society in the City of New York, 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, etc.). I'd like to continue to make positive and constructive contributions, though in order to do so it would restore my confidence to see contributions that I've made receive fair treatment. Thank you for your consideration and any help that you may be able to provide, in advance. Placepromo (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
