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 recently became an administrator and am trying to understand the thought process behind blocking users. You blocked User:Qwertyuiooplkjhg even though they made only one edit (which was vandalism) and never received a final warning on their talk page. I thought they had to receive a final warning and then perform additional vandalism. Do you mind sharing your reasoning for the block? I'm not questioning your decision, just trying to understand it. Thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle)(Talk)03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My (Selket's) RfA
Thank you, WJBscribe, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart.
Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page.
Thank you again·
--SelketTalk18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Elections
Thanks for the note. :-) I'm starting to have second thoughts about the whole deal, but that's normal right? Hehe. Raystorm20:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a different type of key, with much lesser security implications. Besides that code has been in the article so long that it would be almost impossible to untangle the difs that contain the info from those that don't. We've now deleted all reference to the key that is the subject of the present controversy (and about which we received a complaint). I don't think that mention needs to be deleted, but it isn't very encyclopedic so I'll edit it out. WjBscribe21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. I particularly appreciate the fact that you decided to discuss the close with me before you decided to take the matter to WP:DRV... WjBscribe22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, should I have? The summary I read merely instructed me to go to WP:DRV, and once there it suggested I follow through with that matter on the admin's Talk page. If I should have started here without the DRV, my apologies -- I blame the instructions I was reading. I haven't done a DRV before. -- JHunterJ22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh fair enough- I didn't mean to snap. You're quite right, the rules don't require it- its just seen as a courtesy. And sometimes admins will reverse their decisions if faced with a good argument why they were wrong. In this case you had a good argument that wasn't raised at the RfD and I would have looked at it again :-). Still as I still think my close was right we may as well have wider input at DRV. No harm done... WjBscribe22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm afraid not. Its a blanket blan on editing and the I'm not aware that the Developers have ever made an exception for individual editors (or are even able to). Is there a specific edit you'd like made? Or is it a semi-protected page you're having trouble with- if so I could have a look and see if it might be possible for me to unprotected it. WjBscribe01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Curiosity. No particular edit on a protected page that I want to make. I'll inform you if I do need help with something like that. Thank you! PxMa01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No prob, let me know if there's anything I can help with. In a couple of days it shouldn't be an issue anyway :-). WjBscribe01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. However, Twinkle creates a form to send them to WP:RFCN. When I was reporting user names yesterday it sent them to WP:AIV if they were disrupt, but as I said, it now sends them to RFCN. I was thinking this was some sort of an update in policies. PxMa01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
oops! I just added an item while you were delivering it. =/ Oh well. It's a morning and an afternoon edition. Do you need a hand with delivery? I can take half the list. ··coelacan02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fine already. I just saw the problem you're having though.[1] Is that an AWB thing? Anyway, yeah, I'll go ahead and start from the bottom of the list. =) ··coelacan03:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad to. =) Boy, I couldn't have had worse timing to show up and start working on the new issue! ··coelacan03:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Very smart, dude :) I just saw what you did. Nice one :) Can I also point you here and here? - Alison☺05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (deleting like crazy here)
U R awesome :) I'm spending my time monitoring newpages, RFPP, CSD and deletedpages. Delete, delete, delete. Burned out now & at the day job trying to code. Don't need this crap tonight :( - Alison☺05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Back now! There were some recent revisions of that article that needed to be deleted. I was hoping to get it done more quickly than that... WjBscribe06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Will your browser let you auto-select all revisions for restore? Mine won't and it's agony par extreme - Alison☺06:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have been doing it the way that I was told when I asked. I guess that not every admin knows all about the project.--Anthony.bradbury14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Second mop
Thanks, I'm actually interested and another user offered to nominate me. It'd be nice to be co-nominated. ;) Unfortunately I'll probably have to wait 'til next week or so as real life's a-calling but I'll keep in touch. Thanks, Yonatantalk00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
... for the emails & for look after my talk page. Still burnt out here. Had to do a day's work, etc. Tired out but will catch up with ya later. Got some emails but it looks like I'm missing all the fun :) Thanks again! - Alison☺02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"And for your information. Your comment is being removed because (a) it is not a productive addition to the discussions and (b) you signed it with a falsified signature and (c) when you restore it you also restore vandalism to the page."
(a) This is entirely your opinion. You need to cite something proving it's not productive.
(b) Clearly, I did not. I own that profile, as you can plainly see.
(c) This assumes you're correct on (a).
Moreover, I'm going to do everything I can to see you are stripped of your adminship. This block was totally, completely inappropriate. Shiggity16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually my block was totally appropriate and was partly in your interests. If any IP could sign in your name without confirming they are you, you might be blamed for a number of edits. And the revert does restore vandalism. It would have been better to just restore your comment, rather than also restore vandalism by other users. Restoring vandalism by others is vandalism, even if you restore valid content as well. I still do not see what your comment adds to the discussion. But if you readd it whilst signed in and without restoring other vandalism to the page, I will not remove it. WjBscribe16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"If any IP could sign in your name without confirming they are you, you might be blamed for a number of edits." This is true. I should not be lazy and sign in from now on. Also maybe I had it wrong, I may have not seen vandalism I was restoring by reverting to a prior version, and if so I apologize. Shiggity16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No prob- if you look at this dif [2]. You'll see that more than the comment was being added back. I'll unblock your IP. WjBscribe16:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. This is a reply to your message here. I'm very sorry for my comments. The last thing I want to do on Wikipedia is bite, especially newcomers, since I consider myself a newcomer. I will swiftly remove my comments and apologize to the user immediately. Again, I am deeply sorry for my mistake. I hope you can forgive me. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love!23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
FYI
Just as a matter of inter-project procedure and protocol, I believe it's customary for an arbitrator to leave that note on Meta. (In particular, we Clerks have specifically been asked not to do it ourselves.) No harm done though, I think; an arb should happen soon enough along to confirm the request. Regards, Newyorkbrad23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with that. I thought listing them all at once might be a bit much, but when I saw so many anonymous user talk pages were fully protected I figured something needed to be done, as they had presumably been forgotten about. One more thing dealt with, anyway – Gurch00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Yesterday I tried to make a change in The Chasers War on Everything page (a segment from the 1st season had appeared in the 2nd and I just wanted to edit the mistake) but an autoblock came up and said that my I.P adress had been used an xXx radio XXx. I don't know what this is and the I.P adress is used by several people. I'd just like some answer of what the sever xXx radio XXx actually is.
"xXx radio XXx" isn't the name of a server, its the name of a vandal - User:xXx radio XXx, who was blocked by me. When account are blocked, their IPs are often autoblocked for a period of time so that the person can't just carry on editing by logging out after they've been blocked. Unfortunately it leads to annoyance to other users who edit from the same IP. Might I suggest that you create an account (its free and should only take a few seconds)? - your IP seems to be responsible for a lot of vandalism so you're likely to get caught up in blocks due to the behaviour of others. WjBscribe04:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFPP on WP:BAN
Replied there, with diffs of the deletion/restoration/deletion/restoration since unprotection. I realize this isn't all taking place within a 24-hour span, but it shouldn't be taking place at all. Let the MFD reach a conclusion, and then have the policy page abide by that conclusion, whatever it is, but let's not have the deletions taking place while the MFD's still running. -- BenTALK/HIST07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
He's already indefblocked. Blocked users can still edit their own talkpages. Still I've protected for a while to stop him abusing this... WjBscribe08:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. How is it 'harassing' to discuss how an admin can be exonerated from a public acknowledgement of sock puppet claims, but others are forced to wear that tag without any chance of removal? Ultimately I—and others—would not be discussing this if the tag were in place and stayed in place. Plain and simple. Can you please cite the Wiki policy that allows this kind of admin nepotism to happen? —SpyMagician08:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You have a discussion going on at WP:ANI where you can get a feel for the how the community feels about this matter - in light of this I see no need for further posts to Chris' talkpage. WjBscribe08:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Image:Sianjamesmain.jpg was unquestionably a false copyright declaration. A professional studio picture released by a political party is one thing; a GFDL-self tag on it? No, certainly not. I speedied it.
The picture of David Millipede is more interesting as the single-purpose uploader is telling a degree of truth - Image:David Miliband 11 April 2007.JPG is indeed a cut-down version of a bigger picture of Mr and Mrs Heckman with Britain's only schoolboy MP, as the original is on their Fickr page. However, the original has both Mr and Mrs in it. So, unless either of them can move faster than the speed of light, neither of them took the image. The quality of the picture suggests local press (especially given Mr Milliboy's willingness to pose with them). Since they are both in the image, the GFDL-self is clearly wrong. I was going to list this on WP:PUI, but on reflection, I think it's G12 speediable, so I'll do that instead.
Hi. I'm not any active wikis that accept all trivia, but if it's trivia on a specific topic, then you'll probably find there is a Wikia site for it. For example, zip codes could be placed at Wikiasite:local or Wikiasite:World. Trivia on particular TV shows often have a dedicated wiki for them, and there's a general TV Wiki. These aren't Wikimedia projects though and there aren't plans for Wikimedia to host trivia sites. Angela.16:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
hello,
i was wondering if you could look into the status of Special:Deadendpages it has not been updated since early December 06 and most everything on the page has been completed since. there is quite a group of people who would like to work on this but its never updated ?! we have been told that it strains the servers to run this, yet is there not low points in the week this can be ran ? just curious, hoping I could get some feedback. thanks ! Matthew Yeager20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely you can work from the heavily backlogged Category:Orphaned articles - surely that does the same job (without the strain on the servers). Ah, I see what you mean- those have nothing that link to them, whereas the Deadendpages don't link to anything. I'll ask around for you... WjBscribe20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the IP Vandal 207.193.176.61. He/She's been wreaking quite a bit of havoc. Вasil | talk18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello
I am seeking to become a wikipedian admin. I am wondering if you could nominate me because i love wikipedia and want to do so much more to help it!!!! Anyone can tell i was not civil at first, but you can not find anything bad since 4-20-2007. I want to change wikipedia for the better, not worse. please respond!! Politics rulePolitics rule23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Re:Adminship
Thamks! I love wikipedia, and don't entend to leave for a while. I understand about being new, and not having many edits. In your mind, how long should I be here to be an admin. I know i need a lot of edits. Please look at the bottom of my user page and see all i do on wikipedia too!Politics rule11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Block template
As a new admin, I'm wondering what subst template you use to warn users that they have been blocked. Sr13(T|C) 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I like {{test5}} for short blocks and {{vandalonly}} for indefblocks. You can also use one of the ones in this table, which are slightly more tailored to individual circumstances... WjBscribe03:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Won't happen again...I appreciate you picking up my slack and gently informing me of my mistake. Thanks, — Scientizzle23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Woldemikael and (assumed) socks in general.
Is there any way I can tell whether a user is a sock of another beyond an educated guess, or is it something only admins can verify? (I'm expecting the answer to be 'no', as named accounts no longer have IP data to view, but it doesn't hurt to ask) HalfShadow03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I figured as much (generally a sock does exactly the same thing the blocked/banned account does anyway, so it's not really hard to tell), but as I said it never hurts to ask. HalfShadow03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well admins are human and do make mistakes and anyone may point these out. However, I'm a firm believer that leaving template warnings for established contributors (admin or not) is poor form and that restoring them once a third party has taken them off its a good sign they are a bad idea. And issue warning to defend you tendentious editing is definitely not a good idea. WjBscribe00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently by asking a user to cite his sources I'm now "spinning conspiracy theories." Do you just assume that what Raul654 does is always right and anyone who warns him must be wrong because he is an omniscient bureaucrat? Raul654 has got a history of very tendetious editing on this article, and I think his removal of the fact tag in this case is an example of his biased conduct and personal ownership of the article. And I think he should have an opportunity to read the warning for himself rather than be sheltered from it. --Tjsynkral00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He has a history in his talkpage just like anyone else. The removal of the tag looks fine to me. It also must have done so to Voice of All. I strongly suggest you move on. WjBscribe00:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not ready to move on yet. It appears that you've taken a personal interest in ensuring that Raul654 gets his way, and you are calling my edits "tendetious" repeatedly. I would like you to explain what exactly is tendetious about my adding a fact tag for an unsourced statement? Are you telling me that if Raul654 believes something, then it must be true and WP:CITE doesn't apply? Jimbo Wales is an ultimate authority at Wikipedia, but Raul654 is not. He should have to cite his sources like anyone else. Please explain to me why you think my asking someone to abide by Wikipedia policies is "disruptive" to the point that you would be willing to block me for it. --Tjsynkral00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
As to the cite template, sort that out on the talkpage of the article, discuss it with Raul if you want. And no neither Raul nor Jimbo have supreme editorial authority on this project. What I took issue with, and still do, is your issuing templated vandalism warnings to established users who were acting in good faith. And restoring warnings when validly removed by a third party. The tendentious editing I refered to does not refer to the tag alone but your longer history of contributions to this project, which I notice are in a narrow area and seem aimed at pushing a particular point of view. So feel free to discuss the statement you take issue with calmly. But leave the warnings alone. And I strongly suggest you think about contributing to areas not about climate change for a while if my characterisation of your interest in this project is incorrect. WjBscribe00:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr Connolley would I'm sure accept that he has strong views on the matter. And I believe has been sanctioned by ArbCom in the past because of some of his editing behaviour. He has however contributed a lot of content to Wikipedia in areas related to his expertise. I think we've drifted a little from the point. Have a think about what I've said- don't rush for the templates (they don't help) and you may enjoy editing Wikipedia more if you diversify into some other areas that interest you aside from climate change. WjBscribe00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Basically you're saying that I'm right. Don't rush to call someone a slur like "tendetious editor" - assume good faith. I think it was very inappropriate of you to judge my conduct in this way without being at all familiar with the situation. --Tjsynkral01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No I'm not. All your edits have been to Global warming, its talkpage and related articles. That is a worrying pattern. And all the one I've checked they are becuase you wish a change in the tone of the article. I am suggesting you diversify to avoid that continuing to be true. Right, I have been patient - but this is the end of our conversation. WjBscribe01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I thought the period character wasn't allowed in usernames, or have they changed this since I created my account? I'm pretty sure I tried to register as "C.Fred", was denied that, and went for the version I have instead. Granted, I've been around 18+ months, so things may have changed in that time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello WJBscribe. Could you explain Meatball to me...I'm not understanding the relation between it and Wikipedia. Thank you! --TTalk to me17:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent comment to ANI
Thanks, by the way :) Just a quick question, when you said "But I hadn't realised that he had been a participant in the AfD discussion", who are you referring to: me, or Matt? Would you be able to clarify? Cheers, Daniel Bryant00:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I meant Matt because he had participated (i.e. expessed a keep opinion) and you hadn't expressed any opinion. But I've now made sure that's clear.. You deleted as valid close of the AfD. Changed your mind given further input and relisted. Also a valid action though I'm not sure I'd have done it were I in you shoes. You then re-enforced the close by a second admin (and incidentally your orginal close), which had been summarily reversed - also something you were totally entitled to do. WjBscribe00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Nomination for admin
From your comment at my talk page: "I'm more than willing to nominate you to be an administrator. Are you willing to take on a few extra buttons?"
Yes. I read through a couple of the orientation items for administrators, and I'm definitely up for it. It's certainly the natural extension to my work on proposed deletions and vandalism reversions. And for the record, one of my first thoughts was, "Hrm, I need to make sure not to go 'using admin powers' on any items related to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, but send any concerns I have there to the noticeboard, since I'm active in editing there."
So yes, please, I would be honored to be nominated and pleased to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to the questions and added myself to the RfA page, per the instructions. Thank you for the nomination and your support! —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to express my disagreement with (and possible intention to start a deletion review) on this decision. I have two reasons for this:
a) Yes, the head-count was 6 k, 4 d, and 1 m, but I would say the Keep votes failed to provide an adequate rationale to keep. One came from the creator (who might naturally be expected to vote to keep), who merely stated it's an "interesting historical subject" but made no attempt to add references during the lengthy AfD process. Two came from users who said they didn't know what it was a fork of, something I then remedied. One was a weak keep which again expressed willingness to delete if I specified what it was a fork of (but didn't revisit the vote). Finally, two argued for having separate articles but were unable to answer my objections (that it is indeed a fork, lacking references and potential).
b) Here, the creator himself (a new user whom we might expect to make mistakes) acknowledged that I was right to nominate the article. Biruitorul03:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The role of AfD is to decide whether or not articles should be kept or deleted. Sometimes other consensuses can emerge but that is not its primary purpose. There simply wasn't a consensus to outright delete this article. Most thought it should be either kept or merged. Although sometimes merges can result from AfDs if this is overwhelmingly the prefered option, they are best discussed on the article's talkpage as a requested merge. The article you prefered, Romantic nationalism is also pretty problematic and virtually unreferenced. I think the issues of how to present the subject matter are more complex than simply that Rise of nationalism in Europe needs to go, Finally, you might also note that that AfD was the last one filed on that day to be closed, which strongly suggests that a number of admins had previously looked at it and seen no consensus.
I expect given the nature of the keep arguments that the page will undergo a substantial rewrite or a merge farily soon. If that does not happen, you are free to nomintae it for deletion again (although its felt poor form to nominate an article again after a "keep" result, that isn't the case with "no consensus"). I would hope that involved editors will take a look at the various articles covering this topic (none of which are great) and come to a conclusion on how and where this is best discussed, merging appropriate content from present articles - AfD is simply too blunt to work out how bext to do this. So I understand your frustration, but I would suggest you wait a while and see what happens to the article and if still not satisfied, send it back to AfD. WjBscribe04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. You're right that the topic could be much better covered, and it does seem sensible that requesting a merge would be the best option at present. I will do that at my earliest convenience. Biruitorul10:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
... for reverting the vandalism of RollingCoins. I did not realize it was a vandal at first, and welcomed it, but then removed that for a warning instead. Yours, Smee11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Somebody screwed up this page by reverting out a bunch of issues. I am trying to fix it up. Give me a minute please and it will be back the way it should be! Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
I have been running my bot in its userspace, editing User:FearBot/deleteme and User:FearBot/TestPage. Is this not allowed?
Also, during work last night I accidentally signed on as my bot, while doing some maintenance.
I just realised that after reading your message, and I checked my history.
Sorry for the inconvenience, is there any way to flag these edits as being me on the wrong login?
Thanks! TheFearow20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S: If you want to reply, please do so on my talk page, otherwise I miss the message. Thanks!
Mops & stuff
Hey, seeing how I'm not a regular at WP:RFA, I'm not sure which is better - co-noming or strong supporting so I'd appreciate whichever one you think is better. ;) Thanks, Yonatantalk20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJB, the reason why I blocked was because just about all his edits have been adding external links which go against policy. He was given a final warning in February which he just removed. The reason why I blocked was because he knows what he's doing, yet continues to do it. Could you review it again and let me know what you think? I'm more than happy to unblock if you think it's best. Ryan Postlethwaite13:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a first level warning. Completely appropiate in that case. You'd have a case if I overreacted and used a third level warning. --293.xx.xxx.xx17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Help!
Hello. I just saw the Letterkenny Retail Park article. It uses 15 fair use logos to say what stores are in the mall. I'm sure it is a violation of some policy, but I can't seem to find it. I remember reading something about the decorative use of fair use images, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Please help if you can. Thank you. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love!21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by copying this message and posting it their talk page, along with a friendly message.
Help! (again)
Hello. I'm sorry to bother you so much, but I am afraid I have a problem in my hands. Where do I report a user who has made personal attacks after being warned not to? Please help if you can. Thank you. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spreadthe love!23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot03:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Merge"
Irrespective of what happens at the RfA and whether this issue prompts wholesale switches to oppose, as ever I appreciate someone picking up a weakness in my editing and am happy to learn from it. So thank you. --Dweller10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I was talking to a friend on wikipedia, and he said he was being harrassed by the guy who said he needed help. Look above. Now since he was asking me a political question, he is saying i can be blocked? Then he is saying that my friend was harassing him, by leaving a response? Please respond what i should do. P.S it's the B guy above.
Politics rule12:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am back. sorry. I mentioned the B guy early. Now I have found out he has warned three people for no reason. Could you please talk to him. I think, like most Wikipedians, he will respect your admin statics!
Politics rule23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I've been pretty busy today and I haven't had chance to look into this. I'm now going to be offline for a few hours, but I will give the matter some attention tomorrow. WjBscribe23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No need to. I have talked to Boricuaeddie and I hope he accepts my message. No need to
As I have posted this to two other users for advice, I am writing to you on how do I deal with an user as he has given me and another user a vandalism tag for an edit which me and that user, as a result I tried to explain to him that I have not vandalised the article, just general editing, he went out to dish out the blame and this is become heated.
In order to post the full complaint, I have attempted to make use of the ARV button on my Twinkie, but the comments is too big for it, so how do I post this complaint against this user
Another one is, shall I reply back to him, knowing this one is more heated than his previous reply as I don't like to be the person to back down and allow him get his way, therefore I take the blame for a general edit? Willirennen23:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am posting this to say thank you for your help in also removing the tag as without your help, this argument will never resolve itself. Willirennen18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Question
Early in May, when I asked you if I was elegible for an Administrator "upgrade", you said I had around 500 edits. (441 was the actual count in a monuth). Where did you find that? I ahve looked in the spot called "my contributions", and did not find anything, but what I've done. Could you help me?
Politics rule11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've butted in, in a quite rude manner, at Politics rule's talk page, with some suggestions on preparing himself for adminship. --Dweller13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks. Not yet. I tried downloading the Firefox plugin on my other machine; it worked, but I couldn't work out how to find the Wikipedia thingummyjig. --Dweller13:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scribe. This was an issue with HighinBC that we discussed back when he did the unblock (he simply looked at the blocklog and not the significant history this IP has) and unblocked them. We discussed it over several e-mails. I may be coming across as strong (which is fine) because this IP, in particular, does edits meant to annoy me in particular. They have done so on my Talk page and several of the articles I edit. So when they were unblocked by HighinBC despite having a lengthy history of contentious and disruptive edits, it was particularly annoying. Since Ryan and I discussed this over e-mail, I thought I would bring it to his attention in hopes he would now engage the IP (who he struck up a dialogue with on his Talk page after the unblock) and he basically said, "Thanks, but no thanks." Fine. In this situation, I don't mind coming across a bit strong - hopefully in the future if Ryan is going to answer a request for an unblock he'll look into the history of the user. --David Shankbone16:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Kafziel (who Ryan unblocked) did the smart thing and disabled the page from being edited for a few days by new or unregistered users. Perfect solution. I didn't necessarily want the IP blocked because they don't edit enough to have it matter. The source of my ire was in the lazy unblock back when the IP was far more active, and then the cavalier attitude when I turned to him for help (which, as Kafziel showed, was pretty easy to initiate) in a situation he had been involved in, and we discussed at length. I agree, we are all volunteers, and I volunteer about 20 to 30 hours, if not more considering the photo shoots and photo editing, and I think it behooves all of us to create a sense of community, which in this case, Ryan simply did not do. I know of a lot of long-time accomplished users who are leaving Wikipedia for issues like this (I can name about five), and the whole thing is going to collapse if we don't pay some significant attention to the needs of those who spend a lot of time making this place a worthwhile site for people to visit. To be brushed off by Ryan over an issue we discussed at length is the sort of problem I see on WP, and makes me consider investing my time in other pursuits. And I note he just *had* to have the last word on his Talk page (and I gave it to him). --David Shankbone16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue with me more so was with time, and RFPP would have required regurgitating a complex history that Ryan was familiar with (which is why I turned to him for help). I'm right now editing a series of photographs of Lypsinka that show his transformation from man to woman that he allowed me to shoot. This is extraordinary for a drag queen, and Wikipedia will be one of the only places these shots can be seen, especially for someone so famous in the drag field (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lypsinka). I only have so much time, and I have a lot to do with this. I try to focus on adding value instead of being distracted by the silliness found on the Afro page. An the value I add is, in my opinion, extraordinary, that I felt I should be able to turn to an admin familiar with the issue to expend a few keystrokes. My own lack of time makes these things particularly annoying. Your advice, though, is noted for the future and thanks for your offer. --David Shankbone16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If {{CHU}}, now takes parameters like "not used" maybe we should change the directions of the templates to use on the assistance page. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I'd forgotten there used to be three seperate templates to do that. That way we can delete the old ones. WjBscribe00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it important that that information is public? Other admins can see deleted revisions, if necessary. Please remove that as soon as possible. -Jillium01:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks from Cecropia
Thanks for the congrats! I would like to help out at Username changes and I've asked Secretlondon for some pointers, since I didn't do any work there "before." Anything you can tell me about the process, particularly how to determine that the requested change is legitimate, would be much appreciated. Cheers, Cecropia04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see several out of process closes (at most there might be one - but relisting with recommended times aren't binding on other admins). Daniel's first close was after 5 days of discussion and was totally valid. I think he's right to feel agrieved by any suggestion otherwise. WjBscribe 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
My comment was deliberately non-specific; I didn't intend to suggest his first closure was out-of-order, but didn't he later revert Drini? At some point, the general messiness of the situation means that pretty much everything is out of order, at the fault of no one in particular. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
To both of you -- this is exactly why reverting closures (and making new ones) is out-of-process. The entire dynamic becomes too difficult for any average commenter to follow, rendering it unfair to all participants. I have no view on whether the first closure was out-of-order, and Daniel is entitled to reverse his own closure; however, everything after that was "out-of-process" -- the situation had simply become too confused to render a sensible result. Again, that is why I named no names: the situation was a mess, the fault of no one individual. Best wishes, Xoloz12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ban v Block
Sorry about the confusion; I do know the difference between a ban and block, I simply misspoke (I guess when you're a moderator on web forums this happens more often than it should), and it seemed to piss off Doc rather more... however I will not apologize for my comments, even if they were misconstrued (perhaps mostly by my used of the word 'ban'); reading through Doc's comments, I find him to be rather uncivil to a point, and him threatening the IP vandal was only making the conflict worse- hell, the IP complained I was being 'too kind' to Doc, whatever the hell that means. I honestly didn't even know Doc was an admin, as he didn't have the composure I would have expected- comments such as "Oh, ffs, it is a poor fat kid on the internet. Could you not leave it alone and use your obvious talents to add useful content? Knock it off. This is why I hate the DRV farce - full of people who love to pick fights over saving horrible articles on total crap." are not what I usually expect; even Ryan being a total bore one time was nicer than that. That said, we were both in the wrong, all in all- I'm just going to avoid him from now on and get back to CSD. Have a good day, David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!)23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Fred's RfA - Thank you
Thank you for the kind words in the nomination and all your help with my RfA. I've already started using some of the buttons—rollback is very handy, compared to undo or revert from the popups—and if I have any questions with the others, or in general, I'll definitely drop a line here, if not to the general discussion areas. Again, thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Block
Hey. I was looking at Orange Mike talk page, because he warned me a while ago, and was just looking. He has warned too many people, and for no reason. Please look at his talk page, and see all the comments about this issue. He has also been the subject of Meditation. (That i goit from a friend of mine).
Thanks, and God bless,
Politics rule21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It says Orange Mike is not a person. He use's a fancy orange for his name. Please look at my talk page under "Joe Lieberman" for his name.
I was invited into the disscusion of the Buddist Monks killed by the LTTE by another person also in the dissucion. If you object, i will remove my remarks!
Politics rule01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw
I will withdraw. I was invited into the disscussion. If you want to check, look at the bootom of the Srilankan Civil war disscussion page, and you will see that i was invited. Let me know if you want me to withdraw, and I will. I will wait for a response w/o getting off.
Politics rule01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I will withdraw, could you let me know what happens then? I am a member of the SriLanka recoultion wikiproject(If you need help, because I spelled it wrong, look at my userboxes, it will be the second on the top)!
Hey. I withdrew as I said above. I got advice from someone, that I should get involved in these kind of disscussions, so that I would be able to know more about Wikipedia,and how it works. He also said if you want to be an admin. on day, you should do it. I thought that image was graphic, and thought I should comment, but you are 100% right. Do you have any advice yourself?
I wonder if you could look at 192.149.117.69's recent edits? There's a fairly consistent pattern of slightly odd vandalism, but also some useful contributions at different times of the day. Blocking would lose the latter, unless you can do something clever like blocking just for the morning? Chrislintott10:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. I suppose contacting the IP might get a result given that this is obviously a work computer, but maybe that's a bit drastic. Chrislintott11:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted image for BJAODN
Hi WJBscribe,
a question from a fairly new user :-) I proposed a vanity image for deletion yesterday which I see you have deleted, but I think it's daft enough to belong in BJAODN. I've saved the image and caption text before it was deleted, but how should I go about putting it there?
I'm more interested in learning the procedure than in saving this particular piece of nonsense, so if moving the image after deletion presents a problem, I'll drop it. Cheers, Moyabrit14:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Committee Nomination
It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. (Please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.) If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations on becoming a member!
BoricuaeddieSpreadthe love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by copying this message and posting it on their talk page, along with a friendly message.
I now realize what was going on. I want to say a big thank you to you and the other admins for cleaning this all up. -- Patleahy17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Glad I was able to rescue your userspace when it got moved in the second wave of move vandalism. WjBscribe17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am offical begging that you look at my page. Some non-member has been adding comments after my political views. For on example I have "Pro-Life", and the he adds next to "Pro Fasctist". Some one else has undone his edits, but this has happened twice.Please look at my user pages history, and see the edits he made. Could you please get back to me soon, and suggest what I should do. Like comments from other users, etc.
Hi Scribe. You said I could turn to you. I'm being trolled by the IP User:71.112.142.5, who was also User:71.112.7.212 and User:71.112.6.35. Their most egregious behavior (removing all Academy Award references to pages, adding nonsense, etc.) can be found on their Talk page under the IP User:71.112.7.212; and especially in their history as countless editors warned them and they consistently removed the warnings as "personal attacks." That was the first IP; then they started editing under the IP User:71.112.142.5, which is where the trolling on Miss Understood and my talk page began in earnest. The newest incarnation is the "35" IP. Each time, the IP learns to WP:Game the policies and guidelines, starting over with a fresh history so that "quick glancing" admins and editors don't think their behavior looks so bad; however, they have a long history. Under their first IP they were blocked three times. They have trolled me at Afro, Miss Understood on my Talk page, and now at Laughter. I'm not really sure what to ask you to do. A little help? --David Shankbone14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocked them for 48 hours for vandalism and trolling. Unfortunately they'll probably be back some other day under a new IP, but there's not much I can do about that. WjBscribe14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That was fast! You rock. Thank you for your help. I realize that this person is obsessed with me and I'm probably stuck with them. Human behavior is odd. I appreciate your stepping in. --David Shankbone14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Scribe - My troll is back in their latest incarnation, User:71.112.115.55. They have resurrected their "notability" thing on Miss Understood (which Dev and Satyr helped out on, and is essentially settled) and some comments on Talk:Laughter, but otherwise. Nothing block-able, but just putting you on notice.--David Shankbone04:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information that I can request a username alteration without losing the history - I don't get a lot of time here but find it quite addictive and am pleased to hang onto my past editing records. By the way, I noticed your comment in the Out Now Consulting deletion debate and thought you may be interested in the result. I left a comment here: [6] on the closing admin page and as I have not previously gotten involved in an AfD process wondered if you knew if there is an independent way I can ask someone to edit the article from what it last was (I found more material online that looked notable to me and added it and tidied up the citations etc) just before deletion to increase notability before submitting for deletion review? Or is it better to edit then just recreate it or does it go through review as a matter of course. Apologies for my relative ignorance. Not sure of the correct / preferable process. Any advice is gratefully received. JeffStryker14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. As I see it, one of the reasons we have WP:NLT is that it undermines the whole concept of collegiate editing. Its not just that people should not make legal threats against Wikipedia or editors of Wikipedia about their actions as Wikipedia editors, people shouldn't threaten other contributors full stop. Threatening to take legal action for things done off-wiki is just as bad, it still a form of on-wiki intimidation. Contibutors should only be allowed to edit if they refrain from making legal threats. That doesn't mean they promise never to take legal action against another contributor, just that they don't go around saying they are (or might) be going to do so. If this guy wants to contribute to the project, he removes all references to legal actions. Full stop. WjBscribe17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't like "I will not take legal action, or threaten to, for anything she does here." I think we also need an undertaking that no reference to legal action will be made on Wikipedia in relation to things she does elsewhere either. WjBscribe17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
TeckWiz's RFA
Hey WJBscribe. I'd just like to thank you for commenting in my RFA. I know it's been a month since it, but I have been very busy. By the way, I'm now User:R. See you around CHU/U. --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Block parameters
First, I agree 100% with the block you just placed on Replkk. The account was only creating vandalism, and it looked like an obvious case for an indefinite block to me. I was just pondering how to block when you did. It was a screamingly obvious indefinite block, but I didn't want to block an IP indefinitely also. What parameters do you block with in a situation like that? Check 'account creation' but uncheck 'block IP'? Thank you, —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The autoblock on the IP is only temporary - it wears off after a day or two. Just stops the vandal from creating a new account and starting again. The autoblock will also affect editors with accounts but they can request that the autoblock be lfited. You can do that from Special:IPblocklist if the needs arises. The page includes a link to the autoblock finding tool [7]. If you check under my account [8]. You will see that with an older block of mine (Nilmar2) the autoblock has now worn off (which is why its crossed out) so that block will no longer affect others using the same IP. The autoblock for Replkk is #515736 (there can be several if an account used multiple IPs) and you could unblock #515736 without lifting the block on Replkk if that was cuasing collateral damage for other users. WjBscribe04:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for showing me that example. I will certainly not let it happen again, and will only report users that too similar to other existing ones if they are clearly disruptive, (i.e. "UserXisanasshole".) I apologize to Essjay in particular, and I will be sure to learn from this in the future.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise. It was a valid report, and I would keep a look out for names that are very similar to existing users even if not disruptive in themselves. Anyone with a username that includes "WJBscribe" will be blocked.... :-) I just wanted to explain why Mangojuice and I weren't going to block the account. WjBscribe19:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wolfie (Mascot) Deletion
Why delete my article on the Wolfie mascot?
I had a link to the BBC attributing it plus the mascot was involved with a well known amusing incident.
I notice there are acres of stuff on American College Football mascots that, in my opinion, is a dull as dish water but you do not seem to be deleting them.Mariegriffiths22:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm not sure which page you're asking me about, could you link me to the deleted page? Thanks, WjBscribe22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
My Rfa
Hello, WJBscribe. I just wanted to drop by to thank you for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I am thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. Oh, and please feel completely free to shout at me if I ever screw things up =) Wish you a nice day! Yours, PeaceNT11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Block on Thewinchester
Based on the fact this user had no previous warnings and is generally a cooperative and hardworking user on a range of fronts (including vandal fighting) I'd appreciate if you reconsider this block and consider an AGF-2 instead. Orderinchaos15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think a block is appropriate here. The user clearly needs to take some time to cool down. He's not a newbie and is well aware of our policy - AGF, CIV, NPA. He decided to trample right across those and make an outrageous post on Jeffrey O. Gustafson's talkpage. I don't like seeing that sort of thing directed towards hardworking contributors - we're all volunteers here and shouldn't have to put up with it. I feel my response was proportionate and needed to prevent continuing behaviour from someone who had clearly lost perspective. Its not that lengthy a block, and Thewinchester would do well to reflect for a bit. I will give full consideration to an unblock request - if he is accepts his conduct was wrong and agrees to make amends. WjBscribe15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Then I would suggest you have a look on Template talk:Coord as there is someone *far* more deserving of this kind of administrative action (and you'd even have the backup of a past 1 year arbcom ban, civility parole and revert parole) on that page - and clearly unrepentant, too. Orderinchaos15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I may have the wrong glasses on :-) but I'm not seeing anything that bads in edits to that page in the last few days. Are there any diffs in particular I should be looking at? WjBscribe15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this block is unwarranted, while thewinchesters comment were heat and uncivil the language used is not the most offensive on that talk page "Oh, for fucks sake..." heading at the top of the page is a case in point. Given this, the editor should have been warned and asked to reconsider and withdraw the comment before blocking. WP:BLOCK clearly states that cool down block shouldnot be used, as this was a cool down block it should be removed. Gnangarra 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a cool down block. I advise the user to take some time to cool down but that is not the reason for the block. His comment to Jeffrey was comptlely unjustified and trampled across our policies on user interaction. We're all volunteers here and no one should have to put up with that sort of behaviour. A neutral admin has reviewed my block and found it valid. You might want to encourage the Winchester to undertake to apologise to Jeffrey and moderate his conduct. If he does so I would be willing to unblock. WjBscribe15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I am generally appalled at the lack of transparency of this block especially after what I had to put up with in the month of April, I was all but driven off Wikipedia by a pair of users and you guys did NOTHING, even though I took it to Wikipedia Admin Noticeboard like I was told to. I was told to "assume good faith" by Isotope23 (read my talk page to see it) even though there were CLEAR violations, CLEAR acts of bad faith like a guy going on a campaign against me and other voters in an AFD, blanking a featured article, blanking my votes, putting stuff about me all over Wikipedia and all manner of other stuff. The guy went to revert war every single thing he ever did to an article, went to 3 warnings and nothing was done at ALL. Some guy with a great history goes and says one thing to an admin who's clearly in with some people and gets the "You have to apologise!" Don't say you didn't know or it was a month ago or whatever, I posted it on AN/I so you guys had no excuse to act. Next time I shall have NO hesitation sending any violations by this guy or anyone else to your talk page personally and demanding action, because that is the standard you have set. Thank you for confirming my suspicion that it's all about who you know and who you offend, and newbies are muck in this place and ripe for abusing. DanielT521:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, I can only take action on things that come to my attention. Administrators are not one entity - I don't think I've seen your username before so have no idea what you're talking about as I don't read every thread that is posted at WP:ANI (let alone remember all of those that I do read). If a user behaves towards you as Thewinchester behaved towards Mr Gustafson, I would take the matter very seriously. As to lack of transparency. There are three discussions- here, at WP:ANI and at Thewinchester's talkpage. Every word is there for you to read. WjBscribe21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least I know next time my concerns will be addressed. I've posted diffs to AN/I so you can see for yourself.DanielT521:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW one right below Thewinchester case at John Celona - personally attacking other users. He's been given warnings instead, though. Amazing how clear the double standard becomes... Vandals get away with murder and are even allowed to harass people off the project as in my case, good contributors fight vandals, fix articles then have one bad day and get immediately banned without warning. DanielT522:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Had I dealt with that thread I would probably have blocked. I'm sorry to break this to you but administrator are human beings. We aren't all going to do the same thing in the same circumstances. That doesn't mean anyone is wrong, just that there will be in any situation a range of policy-based outcomes. Sometimes one admin will make a harsher decision that another admin would in the same circumstances. That's why we have WP:ANI so decisions can be reviewed by others. And if there had been a consensus at ANI that my block was excessive, I would have unblocked. But there wasn't. WjBscribe22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that if a case like this was to arise in future, you would consider the likely impacts of your actions in terms of the perception of Wikipedia as a whole by good-faith new contributors. If your high standard of conduct is not being maintained by the majority of other admins, you're probably going to end up quite isolated, or thought of as harsh. While I wouldn't put it quite in the terms Daniel did above, having seen what he went through up close on those AfDs and his own talk page, I can totally understand where he is coming from. As a budding schoolteacher myself, the emphasis on consistency, and the fact that we as a whole as admins lose respect if we're not seen to be consistent (and sadly, we're not often seen as human by the masses :|) is something I deal with every day - I couldn't expel a kid for swearing in my class, just as I couldn't openly ignore a punch-up going on before my eyes. We're referred to as cabals and the pile-on vote at the AN/I clearly smacked of that - it's very rare to see admins en masse disagree with an action. NYB's comment on the AN/I is instructive and I hold no disagreement with him - the comment was incivil, a warning was appropriate, and probably would have done the job better - right now, we risk losing one of our wikiproject's best contributors because of this apparently quick decision. Orderinchaos22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This matter could drag on forever if we allowed it. "It's very rare to see admins en masse disagree with an action." I would disagree with that. We have over 1000 admins fromn different parts of the world with different viewpoints who will often disagree. But in this case that hasn't happened. The overwhelming consensus at ANI and on Thewinchester's talkpage has been supportive of my decision, including admins I have never interacted with. NYB says he would not have blocked (NYB is very reluctant to block in any circumstances so that is not surprising) but he does not say that my decision to do so was wrong or against policy. I have at all times agreed to abide by any consensus at ANI. Should it have been against my decision I would have unblocked. But that was not the case. I do not think I have been inconsistent and the idea that we as a body of admins can consistently react in the same way is absurd. To any situation there will be a number of acceptable reactions, and (though I have never send it was the only action possible) I do not regret deciding to take a stong line given the nature of the attack in question. WjBscribe11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but "consensus at AN/I" (or IRC) does *not* trump policy. WP:BLOCK is clear. Several other admins were wrong in their conclusions, as WP:BLOCK is remarkably clear on two related points (the level necessary to block, and the cool down clause - even if you exclude the latter, you have never justified the former), so it's not a matter for interpretation. At least four others who were not part of that discussion concluded that a block was unnecessary and even provocative. Ironically, this has put me in a weird position, will backfire on you the moment Joestella or some other POV vandal comes knocking and you don't take immediate and extreme action such as you did here, and also the fact that I am now obliged to defend Thewinchester and try and get his block struck off his record even though I disagree with the action he took which led to it in the first place. Simple rule (from real life, not from Wikipedia, and I could quote the educational theorist who formulated it too) - don't enforce a rule you can't enforce consistently. Is this what we're going to do every time an editor disagrees with a POV on a page and gets a little heated about it? You're opening up a somewhat dangerous path in this place - assuming bad faith right away of another editor such as you did with Thewinchester without even giving him a *chance* to retract or explain is a formula for disaster, RfCs and whatever else, and a precedent I do *not* want to encourage, especially given the heated nature of many debates on Wikipedia. This place is controversial and political enough without throwing this into the mix. Orderinchaos17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've made the edits. Hopefully the participants will be able to resolve their differences of the talkpage and will request unprotection in the not too distant future.... WjBscribe14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. BTW, I'm working from Category:Uncategorized from April 2007, and it seems someone else is also categorising articles. As I'm just nosy, I was wondering if there is any way of working out who it is? I suppose I could make a list, then a few minutes later make a new list, look at the articles that have gone, and so see who was categorising the articles, but is there another way? Carcharoth15:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of another way. On some projects you could use "recent changes" but there's just too much background noise on en.wiki for that to work. Of course you may find out that more than one person is helping out. You don't need to make a list though. Just open the category in a window and a while later open the category again in a different browser window. You could then look at an article that appaers in the older window but no longer does in the new one... WjBscribe15:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
My contributions
Scribe, I'm running into an issue with a couple of IP trolls, one in Washington, one in Germany. Since they edit the same pages and say the same things, they are perhaps friends...I don't know. But the Germany IP, User:84.178.254.52, is starting to take all of my portraits and rename them. They have done so with Michael Apted, Patricia Neal, Woody Harrelson, Brett Ratner, et. al. In their Commons descriptions, they mention that they are "removing the self-promotion of the editor." They also aren't giving the required attribution that is stipulated in the licensing. I spent 60-80 hours at Tribeca photographing, uploading and editing these photographs, that to have my work undone by someone with some kind of anti-me agenda is very frustrating and I could use some help. I have also been frustrated with Wikipedia in general lately, and some of the things I have witnessed happening on here, and have contemplated leaving. This kind of effort when I have spent so much time, money and patience to make improvements and provide some of the most difficult images to obtain will seal the deal. I won't even finish the projects I have started. I'm simply getting too burned out. I'm asking for some help. --David Shankbone20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP as a troll, see his talkpage. Firstly I want to make it clear that your work in providing Wikimedia projects with images is invaluable and well thought of. I'm discussing how to resolve this with a number of Commons admins. The lack of proper attribution in those images is unacceptable and will be sorted. What we're not sure about is if its possible to keep your name in the filename. We can keep attribution in the image description (and you can legal take action against any use of your images without attribution). But anyone can rename a file to anything else.
I don't want you to feel burned out and everyone wants you to be happy. I will not tolerate this behaviour (unfortunately there's less I can do on Commons where I'm not an admin). But the harassment stops and I will take all action I can. If you want to include your name in image filenames that's fine, but we can't force everyone else to do the same (as long as they otherwise provide proper attribution). WjBscribe20:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. David Shankbone is my Wikipedia name for my Wikipedia work. I use it in the file names for several reasons: 1. I like to track how they are downloaded and used in magazines, blogs, smalltown newspapers, etc. 2. It keeps them flagged as open use (something User:KP Botany has said she appreciates); 3. because I spend a lot of time and go through a lot of hard work to obtain these. I've had quite a few discussions with User:Jkelly about the issue, and she completely agrees that there is no issue with this; I checked with her before I began the project in earnest last year. There are a couple of IP trolls who have taken issue with my reverting their vandalism. But it's getting to a point where they are actually undoing a lot of the work I have put in on this site. I don't have an issue if the name disappears through natural attrition and expect it. What I find upsetting is a concerted effort to undo a lot of work and not have it occur naturally. --David Shankbone20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the inclusion of your name is perfectly reasonable. I'm working on those cropped images. If it were up to me I'd delete them for want of attribution and suggest you upload cropped versions if there's a demand for them. As I see no valid reason for renaming your files to remove your name from it other than as harassment I will do my best to prevent it, but I have limited ability to enforce things on Commons. I am behind you 100% however. WjBscribe20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some images where cropped would clearly look better, such as Woody Harrelson. But the Michael Apted looks much better full-length, in my opinon; same for any models I have shot (their body, after all, is part of their fame) like Ana Beatriz Barros; and interesting shots like Matthew Perry and Jeffrey Wright. I personally thought my Drew Barrymore looked better full-length, but I bend to the wishes of the page, unless I feel strongly, and then I'd take it to the discussion page. It hasn't really come up until now. The Patricia Neal looks better with the cane, I think, then just with her ghostly face smiling. There is a method to my madness, believe it or not. --David Shankbone20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not particularly relevant, but interesting to note that for celebrity photographers, the most difficult shots to obtain are good full-body shots, which was my reasoning for using them. It's very easy to get a head shot; very difficult to get a good full-body. Trust me. --David Shankbone20:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I trust you. But you have to see that the easiest way for your attribution to be diluted is with crops to make images fit more easily in infoboxes etc. If you provide some variations (even if you don't think they're as good - and I tend to agree with you) you get to name the file. And I think we'd have a good case for saying mass renaming of the filenames were harassment/disruption. Unfortunately, I'm having difficulty getting the present cropped images removed. WjBscribe21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Wjb, the block early today looks uncalled for. Have you reviewed the edits? The cropped pictures were much better than those from far away full of advertisements. 71.112.115.5502:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wjb, blocking editors for edit warring then begin engaging in the same behavior on the same articles looks an awful lot like using admin privileges to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Please avoid the conflict of interest and unblock, or stop reverting. The photos aren't owned by any editor, improving them is perfectly acceptable. If attribution is the issue, just put a note on the image pages. And, of course, if that's why you blocked, you should have given a warning.
I'm not harassing anyone. The cropped images are better, they remove advertisements and fit better into the pages. David is actually harrassing me; reverting my changes on articles like comfort food. I ask you to please avoid the articles and cool off for a while. A block and a threatened block for no real violation is a little over the top. Another admin can step in if there's something greivous going on. 71.112.115.5502:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the attribution has no problems. I looked at the page on commons, here's the description.
It clearly says "Author | Frauleinwunder" which is incorrect. And even with attribution, that wouldn't justify the stalking of David's contributions. WjBscribe04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently because it was a redirect to a deleted page - Super Mario Wiki. That page seems to be have been deleted several times by many administrators. Usually it seems because it does not meet our notability requirements for web content (see WP:WEB). An article on the Super Mario Wiki would need to show that it has been discussed in multiple independent sources to meet the requirements of that policy. WjBscribe23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't forget
I wanted a second set of eyes, and the request for page protection seemed the "correct" route to do it. The other alternative, I guess, would have been to send you a message on your talk page. Basically, I wanted a sanity check from somebody else to say that yes, the edits really are disruptive and the page should be protected. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much. When I stepped in, it was a straightforward case of an IP account making an edit, which others had reverted, in violation of the 3RR. Other IP accounts started making the same edit, which I perceived as changing IPs and continuing the conduct. At this point I solicited discussion in the Talk page to see if there's any basis for the link. Once a new user account started editing, that's when I decided to have somebody else look at it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Memo to self: check block log more thoroughly when writing up RfP next time. The edits stopped after I gave a level 4 warning...and then started showing up from other IPs. I thought I had blocked in this case but didn't. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to compare before I'd formally accuse, but I've noticed some strong overlaps in the edit summaries and talk comments between "William O. Rhites" and the anons, especially regarding suppression of the truth. (As an aside, "William O. Rhites" looks like a wordplay on the U.S. Bill of Rights, the amendments to the Constitution that, among other things, provide for freedom of speech and of the press.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling it was a sockpuppet, but I wasn't going to do anything further on just a suspicion. Thank you for getting the checkuser and for taking care of things. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, WJB
Thanks again for the support. In the future, I will let the IPs do the Photoshop work, and I will re-upload what they have done with a new file name, and ask for them to be deleted off the Commons. Any less photoshop work I have to do is fine by me. Truth is, much of the work they are doing I was going to do anyway (removing ads, re-sizing); it came down to a time issue and my own impatience to get the newly-shot photographs up ASAP. On pages where I think the full-body versions work better, like Michael Apted, I will put it to a Talk page vote (feel free to vote there). I appreciate your effort, very much so. --David Shankbone06:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, not sure thats legit. You want to take credit for cropping you didn't do?
Hi WJB. I noticed that you fixed Sesshomaru's talk page not being moved when he usurped his current name. Would it be possible for you to do the same for me? My old user name was User:George.Saliba, but the talk page didn't move over with everything else when I usurped my current name. Thanks. — George [talk]21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, alright, and thanks for the notice. I've seen "just create a new account" before, and I just assumed this was because of a low edit count. Anyways, thanks for notifying me! Cool Bluetalk to me00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently did some history merging and other actions on KFRC-FM, KMVQ-FM. based on suggestions by Scottalter. Unfortunately, there was not really enough adequate discussion to form a consensus on how to handle these articles. I don't know how easily these merges and possible deletions can be undone, but really there should have been a wider discussion about this before such action was taken. I'm really at a loss as what to do now, as I think the articles are in a bigger mess than before (e.g. the entire KFRC AM history is now in KMVQ-FM, which is neither where I nor Scottadler thinks it should be.) As I made known on the talk page of what is now entitled KMVQ-FM, the history of KFRC AM 610 should be a separate article, and should not have been merged with any other current FM station article (or KEAR, for that matter). DHowell21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sort it out between yourselves and get back to me when you agree what belongs where. If you can come up with a detailed account of what revisions belong where i.e. from Mon 12:30 by User:foo to Fri 21:00 by User:Fee need to be moved to X, I can prob move everything back to the right place. Just be as precise as possible in detailing what needs to be moved. Please be careful not to request history merges unless you are sure about where revisions belong. As long as there are sections of the history that need to be moved (and the edits aren't all jumbled up) this can fixed with a bit of time... WjBscribe21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Patricia_Neal_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
