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.
Hi WJBscribe. I've just read your comment: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_WJBscribe. I am unclear on the appropriate procedures, though Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#When_changing_usernames_is_probably_inappropriate indicates that a change of username (regardless of its form) for users who are under ArbCom restrictions would be inappropriate, and should come to ArbCom. On following your link I don't see a clear consensus for/against a name change. The change, it appears, was under discussion when it was carried out after an off-wiki discussion, and the bureaucrat making the change has no record of the discussion, and only a foggy memory of it. From my reading of the matter it doesn't look like appropriate steps were taken, yet it wasn't blocked or reversed, nor did anyone contact ArbCom. Can you shed some more light on this matter? Was the name change carried out appropriately? If not, why did nobody revert it? Why wasn't ArbCom informed? What is the normal process for when a name change has been carried out erroneously or inappropriately? SilkTork✔Tea time12:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This is turning into a longer answer than I'd hoped, so I'll break it down a bit:
Was the name change carried out appropriately? Borderline. In general we rename enwiki accounts that haven't edited to allow for SUL unification. Easy example: someone has several thousand edits as User:Foo on the German wikipedia, has created a global account, and User:Foo, although created by someone else, hasn't edited here. Renaming User:Foo here is uncontroversial. By the same token, if someone shows that they own User:Δ on another project and unified their account globally, then if User:Δ here has no/few edits here, the rename would be uncontroversial (except that opinions differ on whether non-latin usernames are generally undesirable). Of course, it appears that Deskana knew that it was Betacommand who had control of User:Δ on whichever wiki became the "home wiki" for the account. He was also one of the bureaucrats who had turned down the initial request, but I suspect had forgotten that.
Why did nobody revert it? I suspect no one was sure what "reverting" would entail. After all, User:Betacommand had not been renamed. He had become able to edit as User:Δ and intended to cease editing as User:Betacommand. I'm not aware of any other occasion where someone has gone about getting the name they want in quite the way that this user did. I suppose the userrights that were moved could have been moved back - but the discussions shows a grudging consensus that this was OK. One of the reasons I posted the evidence is that I wondered if this remained the case once users started experiencing the practical differences of interacting with him under the new name.
Why wasn't ArbCom informed? I can only answer why think I did not inform ArbCom. The first person to respond to this thread was Rlevse, who was then an arbitrator. Though he wasn't commenting qua arbitrator, I probably assumed he was best placed to inform the Committee if the situation if appropriate. Also, ArbCom considered a motion which made reference to the new name within a couple of days of that discussion starting: [1]. My vague recollection is that - in view of the wider issues - no one was very interested in my comments about the fact that change of name was inappropriate/likely to cause disruption.
What is the normal process for when a name change has been carried out erroneously or inappropriately? It would be reversed if possible. Sometimes easier said than done, see this discussion for an example of a rename that should never have been done in the first place which ultimately proved to be too much trouble to undo. In this instance, I'm not sure a name change was carried out inappropriately. General practice suggests that having only one person with the username User:Δ on all projects is a good thing - from a SUL point of view at least. The question is whether the User:Δ account should be used for editing Wikipedia. If suppose if the answer is "no", then User:Δ would simply be blocked and the user in question would return to using his User:Betacommand account.
Hope the above clarifies things (I realise it may not, the position is not entirely straightforward!). I'm around if I can answer any other questions. WJBscribe(talk)16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I note that there was an ArbCom discussion on the rename. The issue is foggy, and I think people will have their own opinions on what occurred. I don't see that there would be much benefit in ArbCom looking at the matter again, though it was useful for you to bring it up. SilkTork✔Tea time11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
This is one of those "if you don't have the time, then it's ok, just let me know that" : )
I'm considering starting an RfB for myself, to help out.
After seeing previous RfBs I have little illusions about the process.
If you wouldn't mind, would you take a through look at my contribs and let me know what you think? - jc3723:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look at this yet. Definitely grateful for the offer of extra help. Will try and give some feedback over the weekend. WJBscribe(talk)14:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
And 10 days later, a reply. Really sorry for the delay. Looking through things, nothing jumps out to suggest that you shouldn't have a good chance of a successful nomination. I like the way you interact with other users - whilst sometime firm, you always seem to take the time to explain things and listen to others' points of you. You've been around a long time, indeed you've been an admin longer than I have, which I suppose means there might be some old grudges out there. RfB has never been a very predictable arena. Nominations that I thought would do well have often faired less well than those that struck me as more speculative. I'm sorry I can't offer anything more concrete. If there are any incidents that you think might impact negatively that you'd like me to look at, I'd be happy to so. But in general, I think you're the kind of candidate that has a good prospect of succeeding. If it's something you'd like to have a stab at, I'd encourage you to put your name forwards. WJBscribe(talk)13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I have a talk page I'm a few days behind on myself : )
(Plus my edit history goes back some time, so I have little doubt that that takes awhile to sift through : )
Thank you for looking, and for your thoughts.
And nothing I can think of off the top of my head, though as you said, RfA/RfB can be a surprise.
And thank you for saying that, but then I look at this list, and I feel rather humbled.
I'm not very good about singing my own praises. But after I get some tasks caught up, I'll try to cobble together a nom.
(I think I may poke one or two others to look me over in the meantime : )
Basically, I'd like to help, and in this case, to learn how to help - since not being a bureaucrat, I don't know the buttons. Kinda like when I was a new admin : )
Anyway, thanks again. And if there's anything I can help with in the meantime, please drop me a note : ) - jc3701:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Sophus Bie has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Hi WJBscribe, long time no speak. Just leaving you a note to say that I modified (but did not change the duration of or anything like that) a recent block of yours to include a talk page block. What I reverted here was extremely unproductive, to say the least, and I suspected that sort of trolling would have continued if I had only reverted it and left it at that. Feel free to change it back if you disagree. I hope you're well. Best. Acalamari22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Curious: why not simply block MrIndustry? You seem to be treating this as an edit war, but to me it's a pretty clear case of Sauloviegas defending the article against an editor loudly proclaiming that Wiki policies don't matter. If you've got some kind of involvement with either one that prevents you from doing so, I'll happily act in your stead.—Kww(talk) 12:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Blocking me would be completely ridiculous with the amount of stuff I've added to all of her wikis. I wasn't aware of WP:ELNEVER and still insist that her being a Ford Model is relevant and SHOULD be on there.--MrIndustry (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I protected the page because I judged the matter to be a genuine content dispute. Although I have not given the matter great thought, I don't think that MrIndustry's argument is ridiculous - I don't understand him to be saying that policies don't matter, rather that the nature of the content warrants an exception. Whilst I'm not sure I'd agree if I fully explored the arguments on both sides, I think his point warrants discussion. That said, MrIndustry - your comment that you'll keep reverting was unacceptable and many admins would have blocked you for disruptive conduct had they reviewed the matter. The extent of your contributions does not give you a licence to edit war. WJBscribe(talk)10:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I made the comment saying I'll keep reverting it and then wrote on the guys talk after saying it. I was under the impression that I was in the right because he didn't state WP:ELNEVER and I was unaware of this rule. Although I think it should be included in the article, Wikipedia isn't allowed to include it until there's reliable sources... which will be probably never. You can unprotect the page as I'm not going to add it back.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Protecting a page. WP:AHTG says " click the protect or protect this page link." WP:NAS/P says to click the protect "tab" at the top of the page. It took me forever to find the Protect tab/link as it's located between the star to watch the page and the Twinkle drop-down - and it's just an arrow drop-down that I used to use only for purging. Do these links appear in different places depending on which skin one uses (I use the Vector default skin)? For newbies like me, it might be a good idea to explain all this.
Well spotted. Yes, it looks like no one updated that page after the default skin was changed. If you go to Special:Preferences and preview with the "MonoBook" skin, you'll see what it used to look like. The page should be updated. WJBscribe(talk)13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I see, if/when the page is updated (Later note: I've now updated the page to reflect the skin/location issue - feel free to change it if you think it could be clearer), it would have to account for all the different skins, not just MonoBook and Vector. One follow-up question. Per the instructions at the admin school for unprotecting a page, it says to give a reason, but the drop-down for reasons all relate to protecting the page. What "reason" is one supposed to pick?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Update looks fine. As to unprotect reasons - "protection no longer needed" springs to mind as the usual reason. If you don't give a reason, people will probably assume that's why. Other reasons I can think to unprotect might be "dispute now resolved" if edit warring was the reason for the original protection. Also, I used to check for pages that had been protected a long time ago, to see if protection was till needed (e.g. [2]), in which case the formula I used was "Protected X months - trying unprotection". WJBscribe(talk)15:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Question on blocking
I just went through the school blocking class. In the section on IP blocking, the direction for the check box "Autoblock any IP addresses used" is missing. The box is by default ticked, and the directions don't say what one should do. I'm not even sure how this would work for an IP (I believe I understand how it works for a named account, which is explained in the section above the IP section).
I'd fix the instructions, but I'm not quite sure what I should say. Can you shed some light on the issue?
As you say, it's not a setting that makes much sense for IPs - the "IP address used" is by definition the one you're blocking... I suspect "ignore this check box" is probably the best advice! It's what I do anyway... WJBscribe(talk)23:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Assuming the check box has no effect one way or the other, I think the instructions should explain that the box is irrelevant. It would better for the form to be more intelligent (I think we use the same form for named and IP accounts), but I'm not sure I want to tackle that problem. I already feel like I'm questioning too much. :-) Anyway, this is what I would add to the instructions:
Autoblock any IP addresses used has no effect when blocking an IP - this can be left ticked or be un-ticked.
That works - assuming it is irrelevant and unchecking the box doesn't make the block not work. Seems unlikely but maybe worth checking at WP:VP/T or testing out. No such thing as questioning too much - it's useful to see things through the eyes of someone just starting to use the tools. WJBscribe(talk)23:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but I think I'll try the Help Desk first. I'm in awe of some of the contributors there. Some of the frequent contributors are extraordinarily knowledgeable about a wide array of subjects and often more active than at the Pump. I'll report back.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Will, please see this discussion. I'm concerned that the editor is a troll. According to WP:ADMIN#Security, " If they find out their password has been compromised, or their account has been otherwise compromised (even by an editor or individual they know and trust), they should attempt to change it immediately, or otherwise report it to a bureaucrat for temporary de-sysopping. Users who fail to report unauthorized use of their account will be desysopped."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Very likely to be a troll. Unless they identify the admin account that is purportedly compromised, there's not much more that can be done at the moment. WJBscribe(talk)13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello WJBscribe, I've been following this for awhile now and I was wondering why you didn't allow the unsurp. The user in question Is a good friend of mine on wikia and I'd like to know what the issue was, thanks for your time, --ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØDΤλłκ06:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a policy about having a popular game title as a username? (not being sarcastic or rude, I'm legitimately curious if there is) ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØDΤλłκ03:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been able to amass over 44000 edits on Wikia with that username without a problem there. I am confused why I may not be allowed to edit here under the same name, "Callofduty4" is quite a bit different to "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare". Please could this be reconsidered? Thank you :) --callofduty4 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Whilst the name is not so blatant a breach of Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names that it would be blocked on sight without there being behaviourial issues, I don't think it's an appropriate username and won't be performing the rename. That said, I've no objection to other bureacrats providing a second opinion, so will raise this issue at WP:BN. WJBscribe(talk)08:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Please consider giving feedback on my recent proposal calling for a new category of usurp called Redirect-only Usurpation. Thanks. Guðsþegn —— Thane_me17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
E-mail
Hi WJBscribe, I've sent you an e-mail. I'll state here that the matter is not urgent and is something you can reply to whenever it is most convenient. :) Best. Acalamari11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. 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) 00:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe 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—
The position hasn't changed since December 2008 - I don't have the time to do the job justice even if enough people supported me. It isn't really something that lends itself to "dropping in every now and again". Thanks for asking though. WJBscribe(talk)01:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
