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 did not know you archived the RFA of User:Lifebaka as I was writing my rebuttal to Gwen Gale's personal attack against me. She removed my dismay toward her, but left her comment untouchable. It is not fair, so I revert it. You're closing admin, so if you think you would remove my last-minute comment, I would strongly request her comment should be removed as well. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry you had not realised the discussion was closed, but it was. It is important that these discussions have a firm ending as otherwise discussion would continue with everyone wanting to have "the last word". It was correct that your comment after the close was removed. I don't think there is any need to remove Gwen's comment and I don't think it amounts to a "personal attack". WjBscribe19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If she did not remove my rebuttal against her personal attack against me (I'm very offended by her childish comment), I have some doubt that you would remove mine only. You also counted my vote even thought the scheduled time was past (I did not also realized until Gwen Gale said that). It is not also fair to have such the insulting and retaliating comment alone. I kindly request you again to remove her last two comment.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The scheduled end time is just the earliest time an RfA may be closed - hence why your opposition was still counted despite being made after this time. However, comments made after a bureaucrat has ultimately closed the RfA are reverted. Gwen Gale's comment suggests your opposition was motivated by a recent dispute but does not in my judgment amount to a personal attack. I suggest you attempt to resolve any remaining issues with her on her talkpage. WjBscribe19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No, she clearly followed me and left such the degrading comment to revenge after I strongly objected to her closing AFD without giving good rationale. Due to the remaining comments of her, anyone who read the page in future may think that I'm practicing revenge for my own. She is not in the position to mock me as doing her revenge. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The history of the RfA is readily accessible. As WJBscribe says, please resolve this conflict with her. Rudget (logs) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you ask Gwen politely to remove the comment as it is obviously a source of stress for you? I would have no objection to her doing so. WjBscribe19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I did, but she's clearly ignoring my polite request to delete her comment that I consider as personal attacks. The request is about her improper way of revenge. I also consider it as un-administrative action. She even attempts to deal with me[2] (well, I consider it sort of threat) for removing my opposing vote. My vote there within the Wikirule is none of her business and beyond her right. None is given to do such practice humiliating people. Question, can editors leave a comment or open a discussion at talk pages of any closed RFA if there is in need for doing so? --Caspian blue (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Re [3], what if I were able to obtain the blessing of the no.wiki user? I'm no longer actually planning to use the "Xeno" account, but I'd to reserve it as a doppleganger type thing and create a redirect. No rush on the response, and I hope you are enjoying/enjoyed your holiday. –xenocidic (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There is also a user on the Polish Wikipedia with that name and a handful of edits. It'd really need both to agree. Why don't you just go ahead and create the redirects you want? If the nowiki editor objects to the redirects in the future, you can discuss it then but in the meantime no one will be able to edit with that name anyway. WjBscribe21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
ok I checked into it and it appears the no.wiki editor has not edited since August 2007 and the pl.wiki editor since April, so obtaining their blessing may be difficult. however, I believe I have effectively staked claim to the global account on simple.wiki. is that enough to perform the usurpation here? –xenocidic (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
My account(s) on en.wp
I've explained alaready several times what has happened to me. There was no magic behind it.
I have first always used the user name "verdy_p" (lowercase p) on all wikis. This is true for the FR.WP that is my home wiki.
But in 2004, when I first created an account "verdy_p" on EN.WP, I could no longer access to it: the database had experienced some technical issue, and rolled back, and had aparently lost my password. I could not gain access to it so only a dozen of edits were left on "verdy_p" left there. At that time I had requested to EN.WP admins/bureaucrats help to recover my account.
No solution was found (renaming accounts was not possible at that time), so I the only solution I had was to create another account "Verdy_P" (with capital P). That's the only Wiki where I had this alternate user name; beside this this did not cause me more problems than others that already have to use distinct usernames on several projects, just because their usernames are colliding (this is frequent for users that have two-letter usernames, or that use their firstname).
Now enters SUL. I'm invited to test it, so I launch the merge from FR.WP. IT effectively detects all my accounts on all projects, but detects a conflict for "verdy_p" on EN.WP, because that account does not match the password.
Then I am instructed to terminate the merging. So I have asked to the bureaucrats here TWO things.
to rename "verdy_p" (the dead account) into "verdy_p2004"
to rename "Verdy_P" (my current account here) into "verdy_p" (to match my username used everywhere else and notably in my home wiki for SUL)
The admin here replied that this was "done". It was NOT! In fact only thr first step was taken. Then the next time I have logged on French Wikipedia, SUL was activated, no longer saw any conflict and considered that my account was finally completely "merged". It saw no problem in recreating a new account "verdy_p" here automatically (I was given no special notice of this automatic creation that occured just when I visited EN.WP).
Here is where I am: I have now THREE accounts here:
verdy_p2004 (the first old account "verdy_p" that was renamed by a bureaucrat here, used only for a dozen of edits on a single article on the same day in 2004)
Verdy_P (the account that I have used here since years)
verdy_p (an account "magically" created by SUL and that I really don't want)
The problem is effectively SUL: by automatically creating accounts without any confirmation, it is hiding other existing accounts that could not be merged. This may happen at ay time to anyone whose ccount merging is currently blocked: it would suffice that the other blocking account be renamed or deleted, to effectively have SUL suddenly recreating an undesired account masking the existing one.
The bad effect of SUL is that nothing will indicate you that it will create an account automatically, you can only see that by the color of the user name at top of page, because automatically created accounts won't have any discussion page or user page. There's no confirmation before this occurs, and no way to specify to SUL another existing account.
Requesting the renaming of usernames is certainly not the good solution, even for the long term. There will always be conflicts between the various wikis for newcoming users connecting to one or another. I approve the single signon initiative, but this should just consist in providing the correct username and password pair on one wiki to be also authenticated on the other wikis that have been validated in SUL.
Now, here is what I want, to unblock the situation:
Don't care about "verdy_p2004" here (its permanently damaged, unrecoverable and unused since 2004; anyway it had been validated: the email was lost as well as the password due to database failure and incorrect recovery)
Make sure that my global SUL account "verdy_p" (lowercase p) is removed. (Don't touch to any other wikis than EN.WP, such as FR.WP that is my home wiki). I have already snet the request to EN.WP stewards but it was not done.
Rename the current "verdy_p" account to "verdy_p2008" (this is the account I never wanted: it is validated but i don't want it), or "merge" it into "Verdy_P" (capital P).
Rename my current "Verdy_P" account to "verdy_p" (to match the other usernames used everywhere else).
When this is done, I'll be able to merge again the accounts under SUL.
I can handle the local elements of your request but it will require the deletion of your global account first. But there is no such thing as an en.wp steward- all stewards are on meta and act across all projects. A request for the deletion of a global account can be made at m:Steward requests/SUL requests. The stewards may require you to take a few simple steps before they action the request to make sure you don't lose any accounts in the process so you should watch the page for any comments they may make. WjBscribe15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Following the deletion of your global account, I have renamed Verdy p to Verdy p2008 and Verdy P to Verdy p. Hopefully that resolves the problems with your SUL implementation as best I can. WjBscribe21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Celona RFC and mediation
Geez, I knew that, too. I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me when I was putting that together. Apologies, and thanks for rectifying my error. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Mediation Question
Hi, I am (unless someone else does it before me) likely to propose a dispute to be resolved by the Mediation Committee that you chair, but when I came to file the request, I noticed that it asks to "Provide details about the involved parties." However, in this particular dispute, there may be as many as 20 (or more possibly) users involved, so do all these names need to be given, or is it allowed to just say "too many to mention"? Deamon138 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It is important that you list all the parties who you think would need to participate in the mediation, as each will need to agree individually. If the person who comes to mediate the dispute feels the numbers are too large, they may request that groups of editors with similar views nominate a "spokesperson" to participate on their behalf, but initial agreement to the mediation from everyone is still needed. WjBscribe23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I have filed the request (the Burma mediation request). I hope I haven't done too bad a job, though in my defence I will say that the guide for filling it all in is only half done! Never mind I guess. I do have one question though: one user wished to add some clarification to their "Agree" that they added. I moved this clarification to the talk page, but left a "(note)" next to it, with this as a link to the talk page. Is this allowed? Deamon138 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to go about this would be to go thru with the rename and then re-register an account as Beamathan after that's done. This way you keep your en.wiki contributions on "Beam" and have the new account "Beamathan". –xenocidic (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What if I just open a new universal account as Beam? I already usurped Beam on en.wiki (I think)?
I suppose if you don't care about losing your contribution history on beamathan. There is no user "Beam" at the moment, it has been renamed to "Beam (usurped)", I assume to prepare for your renaming... –xenocidic (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Man, I'm just not being clear. I'd open the account and just put redirects to Beamathan. I want the account so no one ever opens it other than me. Beamathan is my full name, and Beam is my nick name. Beam14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Your home wiki (listed below) is blocked from editing. Please contact a sysop in this wiki to unblock it. While it is blocked, you cannot merge your accounts.
Home wiki
The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account. You will be able to change which is your home wiki later.
Per [4], Beam on it.wiki is banned, (on 13:48, 27 October 2007 till infinity by Civvì; Reason: Doppia utenza di utente bloccato infinito). I'd suggest making at least 32 edits with the en.wiki Beam and you should be able to unify it then. –xenocidic (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Why 32? Is that arbitrary? Can I not just say I'm Beamathan?
32 because the blocked it.wiki user has made 31 edits and holds the "claim" to the global account. (I'm sure this could be force worked-around due to his blocked-ness, this is just the DIY solution) –xenocidic (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Xenocidic is correct, if you want the global right to the name Beam you will need to have more edits than the Italian Wikipedia editor who currently has the best claim to the name. WjBscribe23:21, 3 July 2008 (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. Ralbot (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
question
Hi, I'm user .snoopy. from it.wiki, I would like to rename my username from this to Yaxley, as you can see here there is a en:User:Yaxleywith 0 edits, so what do you think about? can I usurp his username? I ask you this before delete my global account and request rename. thanks a lot for your answer --.snoopy.17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
...but this thread User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 19#"Xeno" got archived by MBIII and I'm not sure if you saw my most recent post to it. In a nutshell, I've "laid claim" to the global account, I'm curious if that's enough to allow me to usurp the "Xeno" name here? (for the same reasons in my original usurp request: to have in case my "potentially divisive" username ever becomes more than a hypothetical issue)? –xenocidic (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I didn't see the post. I was aware of the lack of recent edits from those two users but the fact remains they could return and have better claims to that name on enwiki than you do. So no, I still wouldn't be willing to let you have the name - especially as you only want it for a second account - but, as I said before, I doubt anyone will object if you redirect those pages to your userspace. Should one of them return to activity and complain, you can discuss it with them then. WjBscribe08:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please can you see the discussion (such as it is) here.
Just to reiterate: I do not understand how the check-user has linked these two accounts. The problem with such a linking is that it requires any objective observer to ignore the commonsense observation that the two accounts have edited in completely separate ways and would, therefore, be likely to be different people.
I should be very grateful if you might please explain in fuller detail why you feel that the accounts are linked. Thank you for your help. Major Bonkers(talk)07:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I gave the reasons for my block here and I believe they are comprehensive. Obviously the block is largely based on the checkuser findings of Thatcher and Alison, now confirmed by FloNight. I think there are sufficient links between the accounts to support those findings and that a block was appropriate in the circumstances. WjBscribe19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you help with this. The page is nominated for speedy deletion. I have added few reviews to make it notable. Can the deletion notice be removed or not?. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems the tag has been removed. Do bear in mind that this does not prevent the article being nominated for deletion at WP:AFD should someone feel that the content does not belong on Wikipedia. WjBscribe19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking back on it, Mathsci's behaviour towards other editors had become increasingly aggressive at that time. I warned him on two occasions about the tone of his contributions. This edit includes a summary of the problem behaviour and I followed up with a further warning. I observed that his aggressive and threatening attitude towards other editors continued. In particular, this comment was a pretty crude off-wiki threat and this post (though provoked by inappropriate conduct from Koalorka) inappropriately referenced what Mathsci believed to be that editor's name. Again the affect was over aggressive and threatening and I blocked accordingly. Mathsci apologised for the comments he made at that time and withdrew them. I consider the matter closed. Personally, I would have blocked the other user for his comment too but as I acknowledge here it was some days later when it came to my attention. My ask as to the reason for your interest? WjBscribe19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. Mathsci is still following Elonka around and making observations. Some of them have been useful. For instance, he found a situation where User:PHG was damaging articles,[5] and he spotted a questionable diff [6] where Elonka was editing an article about her own company's product, which at minimum looked fishy. I wanted to ask you about Mathsci to help put things in perspective. Mathsci seems to carry a grudge. Perhaps we can gently steer him away. I'd also appeciate if you would counsel Elonka about holding grudges and following editors around. She isn't setting the best possible example. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cailil for an instance of that. Maybe you can help reduce the drama that seems to follow her around. If we can steer Mathsci's energies and keen powers of observation into productive directions they could be of value to the project. JehochmanTalk19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed her comments on Calil's RfA, which I have just read through. I'm sure not opposing the RfA of an editor one has seen behave in a way one feels unsuitable constitutes keeping grudges. Elonka's standards at RfA strike me as higher than most - I believe she has been a lone opposer on at least one occasion, this seems to me a product of this. Also, if you'll pardon my saying so your input seems a little partial in view of this comment from you on the matter. If Elonka is unwelcome to post on your talkpage, I'm not sure you're the right person to be interceding here. Still, I will try and speak to Elonka about these matters when I next get an opportunity to do so. WjBscribe19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A while back, out of the blue, Elonka accused me of stalking and harassing her. Naturally, I was mortified by this accusation, so I endeavored to have nothing further to do with her. For months there was peace. Then she popped up when I ask Cailil if he wanted to be an admin, and she followed me back to my talk page, even though we had both agreed to avoid each other. That was the basis for my telling her to buzz off. If she wants to bury the hatchet now (in the ground), that's just fine with me. But I will not tolerate her meddling with productive things that I am trying to accomplish here. We could be friends, or we could ignore each other, but I will not ignore her while she is trying to derail my work (such as recruiting a qualified editor to become an admin). JehochmanTalk19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see here!
When you changed my username, you forgot to move my userpage and talk page from Arlene87 to Elena85. There is already a redirect page to another account that has retired so can you delete the redirects and move User:Arlene87 and User talk :ARlene87 to Elena85?
Thanks--Arlene87 | Talk to Me | Active Storms::TS Fengshen14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)(I haven't changed signature yet)
I noticed you rejected the RfM for Burma, as I expected it would. However, you also said, "in a case where there is a vast number of parties such as this one, often a bit of leeway is granted between how many parties are listed and how many agree." This surprised me, since I thought we all had to agree! So I looked at the 8 users who didn't sign agree. I learned that:
I think you misunderstood my comment about leeway - there is some leeway to parties not agreeing in the sense of not responding at all, but the fact that people actively disagreed is pretty unsurmountable. Even given your comments about the 4 users above, that still leaves another 4 - nevermind the 2 who have explicitly objected to mediation. WjBscribe02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm fair enough. So does "pretty unsurmountable" mean that there are occasions when users disagree, but the case has still been accepted? Deamon138 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not that I can think of - it rather goes against the idea of mediation being a voluntary process. If a case was accepted that people objected to, they would have the choice of either having to participate anyway or having to accept the outcome despite not having been involved. That doesn't sound very "voluntary" to me. WjBscribe03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Elonka has been threatening me with false accusations of harassment and stalking. I ask your help to mediate this dispute. JehochmanTalk18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look into this. Given both of you are heavily involved in trying to resolve user conduct issues, these rather public difficulties the two of you are having can't be doing much for your respective authorities in this area. WjBscribe18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been paying attention to that conflict. Seicer posted a rather snarky comment directed at me on Elonka's talk page. I'd appreciate Seicer not getting involved in this conflict. It makes things more difficult to resolve when there are extraneous parties. I have no dispute with Seicer. JehochmanTalk20:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No, but I have an issue if you are using the conflict with another administrator as grounds to unblock editors or somehow refactor an ArbCom restriction. seicer | talk | contribs20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
But I have done no such thing. Who have I unblocked? How have I refactored an ArbCom restriction? WJBscribe is trying to help Elonka and I resolve this. Your involvement here is confusing matters. JehochmanTalk20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to butt in, but from what I've been seeing Jehochman does appear to be stalking Elonka's contributions, popping up in multiple locations to criticize her actions. This has spilled over into ANI, with him openly challenging her use of administrative tools. Each such incident, despite Jehochman's objections, other uninvolved admins have supported Elonka's judgment in these matters; such as this AN/I incident. and this recent block, so I don't think Jehochman qualifies as an "uninvolved" opinion anymore in these cases. I have not been able to locate any examples of Elonka openly challenging Jehochman's administrative decisions, though if such exists, I'd be interested in reviewing it. In the meantime though, I would suggest that Jehochman stay away from Elonka in the future, and let other uninvolved admins deal with any issues that arise. Dreadstar†22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA Questions
Here and here you stated that silly RfA questions should be removed, but User:Keepscases keeps adding them for no apparent reason.[7][8][9][10] I told him not to add pointless questions, and removed them, but he didn't reply and simply re-added them. Maybe he would take a notice from you more seriousley?--Koji†Dude(C)20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If I may...One of those diffs was for me, and in retrospect it was pretty tame compared to some of the others. However, don't you think that how an admin candidate responds to something offbeat in the controlled and tense situation of an RfA discussion will reflect (at least somewhat) on how they respond to the uncontrolled situation of constantly dealing with the madness that Wikipedia can sometimes be? In all seriousness, I have recently been thinking of adding a question like "boxers or briefs" to every RfA - to provide a bit of levity but also to see how the candidate responds. And, after all, there was the haiku question, which counted as much as anything in my support of that candidate, and I note 3 supports in that discussion that specifically mentioned the haiku. I admit I didn't realize it was from Keepscases until I just searched it out now. Anyway I'm not sure this particular user's questions are disruptive or silly. In addition, they seem to be different every time, which is more than we can say for the "when should a cooldown block be used" and "what's the difference between a ban and a block" and...you get the idea. Wikipedia is as much about nuance and judgment as it is about rote knowledge, and I daresay that is even more important for admins. These questions look like intelligent—although certainly offbeat—questions. And you can't study for them. Frank | talk 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Broken redirects (new discussion)
Would you have time to add your views and opinions at User talk:MZMcBride#Broken redirects? That followed on from the discussion here. In particular, I've asked MZMcBride if his script would have deleted this broken redirect that I fixed (note that a link existed from Cigarettes and Valentines)? (Less important, but another example, is this fix - would your bot have deleted that?) If there had been only one revision in the history of the "Master track" redirect, would your bot have deleted that broken redirect as well? If so, would it be possible for both you and MZMcBride to filter out the "redirects to deleted pages" from the "redirects to non-existent pages", and let humans check the latter? Also, I'm not clear how you and MZMcBride handle cross-wiki, cross-namespace and invalid markup (eg. #REDIRECT [Fir tree]] or #REDIRECT name or #REDIRECT http://... and #REDRECT [[Fir tree]])? An example of the latter for your bot is this fix I made. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I seemed to have miss this post, sorry. Technically, RedirectCleanupBot would have deleted this page and this page were it not for your fixes. In practice, however, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't as I always scan the list at Special:BrokenRedirects before letting the bot work through it. Those redirects I believe I would spot and change manually before the bot got to it. The redirect to the URL is very rare and would really stand out on the list. WjBscribe02:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ugh
I saw this edit. This bothered me for some reason - I actually (maybe falsely, let me know) kind of pride myself on my ability to work with people I disagree with - see my recent talkpage conversation with User:Dragon695, for instance. Is there a particular reason why you think I have "trouble letting go of disagreements with other users"? (Specifics are welcome - I love to improve.) I'm not sure where the talkpage "hounding" accusation comes from, could you clarify that? I've rarely posted on Redvers' talkpage, I think only for mandatory notifications. But if I'm wrong, I'd welcome a correction. Kellyhi!21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You debacle with SlimVirgin over her image uploads was a little ugly to be honest. Making sure images are properly licensed is a laudable goal but focusing on one user tends to make them uncomfortable. You seemed to continue aggressively tagging her images after she made it clear that this attention from you was unwelcome, rather than moving on to a different problem or asking someone else to discuss matters with SlimVirgin. It is my impression that you remain quick to criticise her when someone questions her actions. I may be mistaken in that view, I won't trawl through the admin noticeboards for diffs but I've also noticed posts by you to current ArbCom case she is involved in, which doesn't strike me as one you would have an interest in other than the fact she is a party.
Your interactions with Redvers seem to me to show an unwillingess to move on. You found little support for your nomination of his page last time and yet, despite the fact that he has been inactive in the meantime decided to have another go, This post makes it pretty clear that does not welcome your interest and yet you still decided to keep the matter alive with a second MfD. Redvers can be a little grumpy and abrasive but he means well and has done great work in cleaning up dubious images uploaded to Wikipedia. I would (especially as a Commons admin) much rather he sat down and talked over his issues with Commons, but it doesn't take much to ignore the fact he's venting about it in his userspace. It seems to me the matter was always more likely to resolved through ignoring him or polite discourse rather than demanding explanations and nominating pages for deletion.
I also noticed your interactions with Monobi on Commons, where I found your approach rather harsh and unforgiving. On review, I see that you have since apologised so am glad you recognised this.
I find this comment of yours interesting [11]. You choose to take the line of suggesting "bad faith allegations" on my part - it seemed rather less friendly a comment than that you left her. I'm not sure where you see allegations, I let you know the impression I've formed of you based on the few occasions I have been aware of you. That has largely been your interactions with Redvers, SlimVirgin and Monobi, which are the only contexts I can remember coming across you. I have the impression that you are one to hold a grudge, that impression may be unfair but perhaps the above will give you an idea of why I - and possibly others for all I know - have formed this impression. WjBscribe02:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh, OK, now I understand. I know I made a couple of comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, though so far as I know, they were all regarding ArbCom in general, nothing about SlimVirgin. So far as Redvers goes, well, I guess I'll just unwatchlist and drop it, though I find it interesting that some users are allowed to "vent" and others aren't. Well, free speech and all that, though the enforcement seems selective. I'm a little disappointed that you'd form such a negative impression of me on such limited information, but I guess I've probably inadvertently stepped into something political, especially given the SlimVirgin angle you mention above, and the fact that I've criticized ArbCom, who I understand you do oversight work for. But I'll say - yeah, I think your impression is unfair. Not much I can do about that, not that it really matters anyway. Adieu - Kellyhi!02:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
No nothing political, I accept that it may simply be that I have seen you only in a negative context. I have heard your dedication to image review work praised which I take into account. I did not claim to have a complete picture of you or to have formed a judgment, just that what I had seen of you suggested to me you weren't one to let go of arguments. Oh, something I should clarify - I do not do oversight work for ArbCom. I have not now and have never had oversight access. Feel free to criticise ArbCom, they are not infallible. In fact I've just asked them to clarify what I find a pretty sloppily worded provision. WjBscribe03:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've struck through the oversight thing, sorry for the misunderstanding. FYI, I don't do image review work anymore (except for occasionally helping at WP:FAC) - there's not really any support for people who do copyright work, and it's just not worth the headache. The king is dead, long live the king. :) Best wishes - Kellyhi!03:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just finished reading the MfDs, and I see you (Kelly) mentioned my opinion in one of them. I find the essay a bit off-kilter as well, but then I look at what links here and seeing that it is not linked from anywhere really, best to take this slowly. You could also look at how many views the page gets, but that would be silly. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably not a good idea, though it may be cathartic. What you probably don't know is how badly the Arbcom case affected me, by pushing me over a tipping point of "barely coping" into "too much to deal with". And that the arbcom was aware of this, or probably were - they never responded to my e-mails about it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2008 (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. Ralbot (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
scribe, on the subject of usurping local accounts here where accounts on the wikis have claim to the global account, you guys might want to ensure you're all working from the same playbook. just a thought. –xenocidic (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
[12] / [13]. I know this probably comes off as overly whiny, and I'm not trying to be; in fact I'm not really worred about the "xeno" name anymore - I just think it's good to have consistency. –xenocidic (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I wouldn't have done that one. I'll have a word with EVula and explain my reasons. He is fairly new to these tasks. WjBscribe03:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Will. Just a quick request - if you have a moment of extreme idleness and boredom, could you possible rename this, this, this and this account, please? It's not vitally important, but would be really nice :) Thanks! - Alison❤17:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. There's a lot of support on meta for a request to the the developers to enable the local hiding of usernames from the user list, which I think would be a good step forwards in this area, but it doesn't seem the developers have been motivated to act on it :( ... WjBscribe17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Will, and thanks for pointing out the Meta conversation. I'll weigh in over there and annoy some folks :) Thanks again - Alison❤17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I gave you a pretty detailed reply, if you want to check it out here. I agree with you that "old timers" would be unfairly screwed. Check out my idea? rootology (T) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that does seem a more sensible approach in the circumstances. I'm not sure it really needs to be quite that high a number, but if that's something people are likely to agree to fair enough. As to your question on bureaucrat recall, errors (or perceived errors) may be rare but they are sure to generate a mob with pitchforks :-). And of course the process might be used to recall the simply inactive. WjBscribe22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind commenting here? I think I boiled it down to the only viable form that sane admins can't possibly object to. If that method isn't accepted, nothing will ever be unless the Arbcom or some greater power enforces it. rootology (T) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully note
that I've reverted your archive of the Giano thread for now. I've replied why there, and I assure you I'll close it (archive it) when the time comes. It's too early at this stage to do so, I think, and defeats the purpose of me opening the thread in the first place. Hope you understand - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, well it looks like Horologium has once again tried to prematurely close a thread. It makes me wonder why we even bother wasting our time on WQA, mediation, ANI, arbitration etc. if no chance is going to be afforded. Anyway, I don't want to edit-war, so I'd be grateful if the next bit was untouched. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that there is an ongoing arbitration and that people, myself included, feel that a divisive parallel community discussion is seriously counterproductive. WJBscribe(talk)17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sawadee. Thanks for helping with my new account. Rlevse helps with my English and learning wiki (he taught me "usurp" last night). He just helped me make my account on Thai wiki and unify it. That's the only one want a lot right now. Khop khun kaa. JoJo (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Manacpowers stated on the Taekwondo talk page that he would be off line for approximately a month, as the core problem is that I do not belive he understands what mediation is. (see the previous attempt and how Manacpowers cited it) Please would you reconsider and postpone a decision till it has been explained to him, as this is likley the last chance for a productive outcome, as the edit war will likely recomence on his return if there is not another option. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Had he merely been inactive, I would have held the case open but his comments on the matter appeared to me to be a pretty clear rejection of mediation as an option. Feel free to ask again when he returns if you think he has misunderstood what was being proposed. WJBscribe(talk)02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Admin
Thank you for the compliment. I try to keep policy in mind and do a good job in whatever I'm involved in on WP. Overall, I do try to get along well with other editors, although I have to admit I've crossed swords a few times with some. I think the most contention I've had has been in relationship to the few sock cases I've dealt with. The most prominent would have been what turned out to be (and what I already knew both intuitively and objectively to be true) a sockpuppet master and her socks: Dooyar, Nyannrunning, Debbiesvoucher, Evanbayh, and Seth4u2nvcs. She had very distinctive writing and argument style, edit summaries and a narrow range of interest in editing, which was somewhat off the beaten path, so not a lot of others noticed her. For a while, I was beginning to believe that I was the problem, but finally we were able to prove the sock case. I've also crossed paths with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), although I'm not the only one who has taken exception to his methods of referencing and viewpoint. I am pointing this out in the interest of being candid about conflicts I've had. I did have one issue not long ago where a banned sock master did a bit of cyberstalking of me after I had reported a new identity (one of the incarnations of User:ColScott). He put out a request for my real identity on his discussion forum on his website. This led to my changing a great deal of information on other sites (MySpace, for example). Thankfully, he lost interest after a few days of harassment.
I've considered putting in a RfA, but have some reservations as well. I'm involved with WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, reviewing articles, trying to pick up the slack in article assessment, and working on filmography completions, and I do enjoy that quite a bit. I wouldn't want that to be effected. I'd like to take a few days to consider this, and I'll get back with you in a few days, if that's okay. Thank you for considering me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember a few weeks ago I asked you about this case, and you said you'd get back to me, but you didn't. I'm just going to close the case as unresolved, and if it needs re-opening, it can go straight to MedCom. Thanks anyway, Steve Crossin(contact)02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Arghhh. Sorry Steve (again). I grovel shamelessly. That's probably for the best though - as I read the discussion that followed your email, the view was that while individual members were willing to be approached, it wasn't felt that the idea was something that MedCom as an entity could fully get behind. Btw, did Mellie get my answer to her email? WJBscribe(talk)04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's alright, I really did think the case had probably gone stale anyway, though I suppose I will find out sooner or later whether the case is really solved. In regards to Mel, yeah, she got your reply, but by that time, Kingturtle had already done it all for her, and she now edits under the name that you were told in the email. The "home account", or at least according to SUL, is at sv.wikipedia. I suppose she could negotiate with them regarding the global account. Best, Steve Crossin(contact)05:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Offensive usernames to rename?
Hoi, please check [16] and [17] (the actions on July, 20th, around 21:45 UTC). These all are unified accounts created on a small wiki and extended to enwiki. (Already renamed on the two small wikis, globally locked and hidden from the global account list.) CU is not necessary, done on the smaller wikis already. Can you please rename them on enwiki, too? (Or is that not usual here?) I don't want to post the names here, I think it's enough that they are in the logs forever... (Sorry, you're the only enwiki bureaucrat that I know of. ;) ) Best regards, --Thogo(Talk)22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed the worse of those on enwiki - let me know if I've missed any. Frankly I suspect Grawp can create these faster than we can rename then :(. The devs implementing local username hiding would useful. WJBscribe(talk)02:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we are faster than this <<censored>> guy. We are more hands, he is alone, just a single person with some strange processes in his head. ;) But yes, local hiding (from all log files) would be great. --Thogo(Talk)16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
wiki-meetup
Hey, I saw from past records that you attended london wiki-meetup no. 9; if you're interested in attending again we're planning meetup 12 at the moment. Ironholds16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
SoxBot VI
Hi, a while ago, you blocked SoxBot VI for removing bureaucrat comments. After discussing with Cobi (who knows more about bots than me), he decided that the reason was a simple edit conflict, and doesn't know why it's happening. So I ask you, if it's a simple edit conflict, and there really isn't anything to do, would it be ok to unblock? As another note, I finished a rewrite, and it seems to work. Soxred 9302:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked it. We'll see how it goes this time, it can always be blocked again if there are problems. Thanks for your work on it. WJBscribe(talk)10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there some reason I didn't deserve the courtesy of being contacted about this before the unblock? Or, hell, after the block for that matter? It's not like I'm hard to get in touch with; I'm on all day. What crucial edit did he need to make that couldn't possibly wait two minutes for me to reply?
To be honest, the reason I didn't get in touch is that I wasn't overturning your block - which was a perfectly valid response to vandalism. The owner of the account contacted OTRS and explained the circumstances in which his account had been compromised. I unblocked following assurances that a secure password would be chosen and having pointed out, given the past incident, there probably would not be any unblock should further security occur. Had a realise you expected to be informed of any developments, I'd have dropped you a note but as I was not questioning the validity of the block I didn't think one was noted. And although I accept that you'd rather I had acted differently and apologise for the offense caused, I don't appreciate the aggressive tone of your message to me. WJBscribe(talk)21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Not aggressive, just honest. It is frustrating. We're both adults, neither of us is a newcomer, and we should be able to talk without being overly sensitive.
You did, in effect, overturn my block. The blocking offense was vandalism but, as I said in my block message to that user, the account doesn't appear to warrant overlooking two password breaches. This is particularly true since another sockpuppet/meatpuppet/otherwise somehow related account has been making the same edits.[18][19] I fail to see how that relates to OTRS. And if it was undone for that reason, shouldn't an OTRS ticket number have been provided? KafzielComplaint Department23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want the ticket number it's 2008072210027395. I'm not sure the other account changes the picture much, unless you think Jojoplaut is lying about the security breach and that this account is also him - in which case requesting a checkuser would probably be the way to go. Whilst the account's pre-hijack IP data is now probably too old to check, a request may be fruitful once further edits are made from the account. I find it strange that you feel the need to post a rude rant about lack of courtesy on the wiki because I failed to notify you of a routine unblock and then suggest it is I who am being overly sensitive when I remark that you could have expressed yourself in a more polite manner. In any event, either this account will be misbehave again and be blocked (this time no doubt permanently) or it will not - in either case the matter would seem closed. WJBscribe(talk)23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what's "rude" about it. Is honest communication now reserved strictly for IRC, OTRS, and personal emails? Are two admins no longer allowed to have a frank discussion on a talk page? KafzielComplaint Department23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't think honest has to equal impolite but I think you have been. To my memory we have never had a discussion before by any medium. So the first thing I read from you includes a series of pointedly phrased rhetorical questions and a rant about "common courtesy" having gone out the window. I think you might find you get a better reaction with something friendlier like "I don't want to make a huge deal out of this, but I do appreciate someone letting me know if accounts I block are later unblocked, regardless of the circumstances". And now it seems you want to make some point about off-wiki communication. I can't help but feel that you wish to vent about the ills you perceive with Wikipedia and that you are directing these comments at me as I am the most recent person to offend you. Sorry as I am that you feel courtesy is lacking and that you believe communication that should be on-wiki takes place elsewhere, I don't think you are going to set things right through a discussion on my talkpage however "frank" you decide to be. I enjoy frank discussions with many admins on this project, I'm not getting the feeling I would enjoy one with you. For one thing, I notice that while I have apologised for discourtesy in not notifying you of the unblock, you have made no similar apology for your lack of courtesy in the tone of your comments here. WJBscribe(talk)23:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't apologized because I haven't said anything wrong. The questions I asked weren't rhetorical; in fact, you answered them by telling me it was an OTRS issue and therefore it was a) urgent, and b) not necessary to talk to me first. Along with the ticket number, that would have been perfectly sufficient. It seems quite a stretch to take what I said as rude—terse, certainly, but that's just me—and an equal stretch to label a few questions as a "rant". All that's left is the remark about "common courtesy", which I stand by. There's no rule against voicing frustration.
I don't want to make a huge deal out of this, and I don't think I have (length of this particular thread notwithstanding). There'd have been no point in telling you I'd appreciate a note, because the blocking policy already tells you that. We've all read it. And there wasn't much point in telling you I would have appreciated a note, either, because what's done is done and that's okay. I just wanted a better explanation, and you gave it to me. So thanks for that. KafzielComplaint Department00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
IRC?
I know you are a rather busy person, but if you'd be so willing, could I talk to you about a mediation matter. I'd do email, but it's rather slow. Would you mind coming on IRC? I'm in my channel, ##Steve, so you wouldn't be swamped by Wikipedian's. I'm somewhat stuck and could use some help. Best, Steve Crossin(contact)21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Now's not a great time for me but if you're still on in a couple of hours I should be able to spare you a little while then. WJBscribe(talk)21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
it only deletes such redirects provided that they have ony one revision in their page history. I noticed this typo in your userpage. I wanted to point this out to you so that you could fix it :) Cheers, Razorflame10:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. I usually don't edit this Wikipedia, but I noticed a few users who have RfAs that I wanted to !vote in, so that was why I came back. I saw one of your supports (J.delanoy's RfA) and that was what prompted me to look at your userpage. When I looked at your userpage, I just looked in a few of your naviboxes, and I saw the typo :) Cheers, Razorflame04:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
A weird one for you
About two weeks ago, you did a username change, see [20], first entry. What's weird is that this editor has continued to edit under his old username, and rather disruptively (adding hundreds of articles in bot fashion with multiple errors, causing real headaches, ironically though the articles are likely notable and he's filling a gap quite nicely). My reason for posting here though is to ask how is he able to continue to edit under his old username? Re-registering it? Am I missing something really obvious? He has hundreds of edits, today even, as User:SignIDlike, which was redirected automatically during rename to User:RushdimIDlike. Not sure how to proceed, for now, I've blocked the "old" name until he posts to that talkpage explaining his fine self...Keeperǀ7618:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It rather depends on who recreated the account. If RushdimIDlike recreated his old account and edited disruptively with it, both accounts should be blocked. If a third party maliciously recreated SignIDlike (there is a warning at WP:CHU that users should consider recreating their former account to avoid impersonation) and edited disruptively using it, then only that account should be blocked and not RushdimIDlike. WJBscribe(talk)02:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm 100% sure it's the same person, with both accounts, based on the same contrib pattern. I've blocked only the original though, and broke the redirect for the usertalkpages as they were both editing daily. The "original" account left in a huff yesterday, and may not be back at all, which is a shame really, because many of his articles were notable, just really really badly written. By sheer volume (100s of articles created), it was creating disruption because he wasn't responding to requests to slow down and be more careful (creating in some cases 10 articles per minute, with broken cats, bad grammar, no refs, etc). I'll keep my eye on the account (s), thanks for your advice here. Cheers, Keeperǀ7615:33, 25 July 2008 (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. Ralbot (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings?
Hello WJBscribe!
I know that this delayed (alright, it's really delayed), but my sincere apologies for my disruptive behaviour that went on a little more than a year ago.
I am terribly sorry and hope that you and others understand that I am trying to make things fair now. I have recently taken a liking in anti-vandalism efforts.
Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of MyWikiBiz. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Neıl☄13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to bring your attention back to User talk:Jimbo online#Your username. I am not comfortable with this username. I am assuming that most people do not maintain watchlisted user talk pages as a matter of routine, which is why I am posting here. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right that I don't have his userpage watchlisted. There was a community discussion about his username back when I commented on it: [21]. The consensus seems to have been that his name is OK. I don't really agree, but there it is... WJBscribe(talk)12:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the turn of events was most unexpected. If you told me nine months ago that this was going to happen, I never would have believed you. I do not think it is "playground politics" though. A substantial number of users have concerns that should be addressed, rather than swept under the carpet. Problems like this do not go away through suppression. It might be best for all concerned to take the underlying disputes to arbitration so that there can be some sort of resolution. Otherwise, this may turn into a long simmering feud, which is to nobody's benefit. JehochmanTalk07:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't care which system we use for creating bots, but I wish we could stick with one. The instructions to bureaucrats have said not to use Makebot for the past couple of months (I see that you have added it back today), so I standardised. I see that there's now a thread about which one to use at WP:BN. Warofdreamstalk01:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Request to strike
You have accused me of improper behavior when you said, "It seems to me to be an abuse of an admin's recall pledge to start a request because one is dissatisfied with the community's feedback to an RfC about that admin - a pretty case of forum shopping."[22] I am asking you to strike this, or provide evidence that I can refute. I was not dissatisfied with the community feedback on her RFC. You have no idea what is going on in my mind, and you should not presume to know. The reasons I stated for starting the recall were 1/ the RFC showed colorable evidence of administrative abuse, 2/ Elonka had attempted to delete the RFC (she's done this once before, per Athaenara's comment), and 3/ Elonka had attempted to intimidate me, per the diff I supplied. Those were my reasons. If you would care to address the substance of my concerns, rather than dismissing them as "petty", we might make progress. JehochmanTalk07:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't push it Jehochman. I have called your behaviour as I see it. The sentence begins with "it seems to me", people are free to agree with my opinions of your conduct or not - it is not affected by your excuses since. I will repeat here what I have said to you by email: since Elonka has been an admin, you have taken an unhealthy interest in her activities. You have followed her around the wiki and made comments to undermine her when she has been doing difficult dispute resolution work. In the diff you cite, she comments on the fact that a large proportion of your edits seem to be focused on her these days and I would tend to agree. You have made a number of comments targeted at me that I strongly object to, especially given you know it would be weeks before I would read them and be able to respond. Whenever my name has come up in discussion, you have casually dismissed my opinions with the fact that I am a "close friend" or "close associate" of Elonka. I now realise the advice I gave you previously fell on deaf ears as you are determined to think that my views are clouded by the fact that I enjoy talking to Elonka.
If you are surprised by my reaction to you these days, you might like to reflect on whether it was wise to accuse me of administrator abuses [23]. Personally, I think you have behaved with much in common with the playground bully. That some have been taken in by you and are clearly acting in good faith does not change the fact that I do not believe you are. WJBscribe(talk)13:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well then, since we seem to have come to a stalemate, I suggest we avoid each other, as I plan to avoid Elonka. Hopefully in time the situation will improve. Feuding is not good for the wiki. While you were away I purposefully avoided speaking of you on many occasions. If I slipped up, I am sorry. I also thank you for the help you've given me previously. I am sorry things have come to this state. JehochmanTalk16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You have undertaken to avoid Elonka in the past, but this has not stopped you from filing recall and arbitration requests against her. I also believe that it hasn't stopped you from contacting others and agitating behind the scenes, but of that I have little evidence. I will believe this latest undertaking when I see it. WJBscribe(talk)16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Jason question
I'm sure this is a dumb question, but regarding my Usurpation request - if there are already a slew of Jasons out there, why can't I just usurp the existing EN User:Jason, and not take the universal rights? If SUL for that username is already out the window, and there's already a User:Jason in EN wiki, couldn't I just usurp that? --JaGatalk22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a stupid question at all. It's because SUL as it stands is a work in progress - eventually (the timescale is unclear) all accounts will need to be global and it will only be possible for there to be one User:Jason. Adding a new account with a competing claim for the name complicates that process. WJBscribe(talk)14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Crats already encourage this I believe, and short of requiring users to disclose their email at CHU (to sent the password via email), I doubt doppelgangers could be set up exactly at the moment of rename.MBisanztalk04:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Not the first time this issue has arisen. The instructions at WP:CHU do recommend that users recreate their account after having been renamed, but it seems many ignore (or do not read) that advice. Bureaucrats used to recreate the accounts in the early days of renames but that would represent a lot more work now that there are about 400 users renamed each month. A software change to make recreation automatic may be the best way forwards, but that will depend on when a developer has the time and interest to work on this. WJBscribe(talk)12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
