User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 16

[edit] WP:CHU

A friend of mine, User:Truco9311, can requested a name change there. I remember that you were the user who changed mine for me a while back. Can I request that you change his username for him today? iMatthew 2008 15:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Andrevan is dealing with this request - I'll talk to him about it. WjBscribe 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XIV - February 29, 2008 Article Milestones The leprechaun is a male faerie in Irish mythology. We have one new Featured Article this month - Emily Dickinson was recently promoted thanks to the hard work of Yllosubmarine! We also have 4 new GA-class articles: Ben Daniels, J. Michael Bailey, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, and Walt Whitman were promoted this month, but Dante's Cove was demoted. Wikinews Things are happening over at Wikipedia sister project Wikinews. First, Nicholas Turnbull became the first openly-Trans reporter to gain (resounding) accreditation by the Wikinews community. Second, project member David Shankbone is going to Rio de Janeiro at the invitation of the Rio Convention & Visitor's Bureau. Wikinews:Portal:LGBT Lambda Book Report Project member Moni3 has been working on the article for Barbara Gittings and noted that the Lambda Literary Foundation used the lead paragraph from Wikipedia, skillfully and lovingly written by Moni3, verbatim in the Lambda Literary Pioneers calendar. Moni3 contacted the Lambda Literary Foundation to let them know, and to ask if we could get a little write-up in the next Lambda Book Report. There is a preliminary text you can find here. Feel free to add to it. It should be no longer than 1,000 words, and it needs to be submitted by March 15. New members Let's give a big LGBT welcome to all our new members: Dylankidwell (talk · contribs), Jay*Jay (talk · contribs), Ftmichael (talk · contribs), AgnosticPreachersKid (talk · contribs), Phyesalis (talk · contribs) , Tullerk (talk · contribs), Ravenwhitehorse (talk · contribs), TigressofIndia (talk · contribs), Yohan euan o4 (talk · contribs), Masculinity (talk · contribs), Renegade Replicant (talk · contribs), and Youngwebprogrammer (talk · contribs)! User categories Place yourself in a user category so you can collaborate with other LGBT/Allied Wikipedians! Mostly for allies of LGBT people; To place yourself in Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues, just add [[Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues|?]] to your userpage and change the question mark to your username OR add this userbox by placing {{User:UBX/LGBTinterest}} on your userpage. Mostly for people who identify as either Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender; To place yourself in Category:LGBT Wikipedians, just add [[Category:LGBT Wikipedians|?]] to your userpage and change the question mark to your username OR add a userbox found at User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality#Sexual orientation. St. Patrick's Day In honor of Saint Patrick's Day, why don't you consider improving one of these articles: Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland, Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform, Recognition of gay unions in Ireland, List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland, or any of the articles in our to-do list? Women's History Month March is Women's History Month in the United States. Help us celebrate by improving History of lesbianism or Lesbian American history! You could also find references for women in our giant list of LGB people to be sorted. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know.

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user and rfa candidate Abd, worse then ever

User Abd has instructed user Ss06470 how to personally attack me and others. Here he gives an example of how to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#second_warning.2C_no_personal_attacks

":In the edit summary, put an apology for (if that's accurate) failing to AGF (assume good faith). Or you can add an apology insertion right after the struck out text. Like this:

Scuro has evil intent, obviously in the pay of the drug companies [I apologize, I was having difficulty understanding his motives]"

Although the tone is mockingly humourous, the dig is there especially since the article is ADHD controversies. This example on a talk page followed shortly after.

Great Ned. You belong here guarding this site from the likes of me and them. Oh is that insulting? My apologies. Where are you Scuro? Or have you taken on a few user names Whoops My apologies

Here is another recent post of his again about me.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#Your_comment_on_Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder:_controversies_on_22:45.2C_29_February_2008

Dr. Sobo, you are correct that there has been long-term biased push on these articles, and Wikipedia is vulnerable to such efforts. Short-term push can be dealt with, but long-term, persistent warping of an article by someone really determined to do so can be very effective. However, be careful. Thinking of Wikipedia as a battleground can lead you into some serious mistakes, such as that here. Archiving of Talk is essential. If it is done incorrectly, it can be fixed. History remains for all of it. Nothing is lost. But the goal here is the article, not Talk. I've been distracted elsewhere, or I'd have been more active restraining the particular editor who is tangling with you. Abd (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like this to stop. I assume he will attempt another rfa in the future. Perhaps you can clearly state to him that such posts are very uncivil and do not follow the wiki way. I do feel restrained by him. It feels like every edit of mine is contested with constant corrections in talk. I find myself devoting my time on wiki simply defending myself and my edits from him. The olive branch has been extended many times to him by several editors. I believe he thinks he has a right to "restrain" contributors and this is why he refuses to acknowledge the olive branch or post only about content. I am a forgiving man, and if I see real change I can truly forgive. You would think that after the rfa process, he would reflected on those people he had angered deeply in the past and changed his style, but the examples show no improvement whatsoever. If he doesn't change I'd like to be able to comment in any future rfa process. Please feel free to share any part of this post with Abd. --scuro (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

I just deleted Larry Sinclair as a recreation of a deleted article (CSD G4) (though it had morphed into a somewhat different form from the original deleted version). I also deleted the talk page (CSD G8), it also repeated some of the objectionable material. I am still a fairly new admin and thought I would double check with you. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think technically the new article didn't fall under 4 - it seems to have been written from scratch rather than being a repost of the same content. I think this article also fell under G1 however - this time as an attack page about Sinclair, not about Obama. In any event, the incident is far from significant and has no reliable third party coverage - indeed I believe reputatable sources have refused to print the story - so it should be hear. Thanks for spotting it. WjBscribe 09:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for checking this and for all of your work here. I was not sure how close the contnt had to be to the original to fall under G4, thanks for clarifying. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MC

It seems that the Meditationbot is taking over a day to move my nomination. I did read there was going to be a delay, but did that mean over a day? Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems to have died. I've manually transcluded it. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. Have you let ST47 about the problems with the Bot? WjBscribe 09:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, the bot is now up and running again ;) AGK (contact) 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal testing mediation

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Animal_testing#Close_mediation.3F. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin replied to me a few days ago saying she still wished to proceed but I have not heard again from her since then. Ultimately I am in your hands - we can crack on if you're all ready or close the case if you would now rather attempt to resolve the disputes in another manner. A case could always be started again at a future date. WjBscribe 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this can be closed, since it really doesn't seem to be performing any useful function. The article is quite stable and has greatly improved over the last few months, so there doesn't seem to be any pressing reason for this rather ill-defined and now completely inactive mediation. Any remaining problems that come up as part of the Good Article review can probably be resolved with discussion on the talk page, or we might even try a RfC if any specific issues arise in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riana RfB

I had a couple thoughts about the Riana RfB, but I did not want to directly interfere with (or post to) the bur. discussion:

7 users dropped their opposition (just over 15% of the total opposition through the course of the RfB). (Or looking at it another way, if they did not drop their opposes, it would have resulted resulted in an 18% higher oppose total.) Of them, the slight majority (4) switched to support. It should also be considered that some of those switching to support had their oppose reasons cited (as per user X) by other oppose/neutral participants.

On the neutral votes, 2 switched to support (33% of the total neutral !votes made during the course of the RfB). One of them was cited by another neutral !vote. Of the four remaining neutrals, two lean explicitly towards support, one seems truly torn/neutral and another leans towards opposition.

No supporting users changed their vote throughout the course of the RfB. Three expressed some level of concern regarding the issues raised by the opposition, but kept their position (two about Kelly Martin, one about the f--- that diff). Two people felt the need to reconfirm/amend their support as strong support after the opposition was raised. Another changed to a stronger support after the candidate answered a question about the Kelly Martin issue.

This is just some thoughts about the RfB and they seem significant/important to me. You're quite welcome to take it with a grain of salt and tell me to mind my business. :) Vassyana (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting analysis. Before I placed the decision on hold, I considered whether an extension of time might help a clearer outcome to form. You analysis would suggest that it might - a shift of those opposing to supporting. But looking at the progress of the RfB day-by-day, there is no trend in one direction or anoter. The support % oscillated a little but largely remained flat, which was why I felt there was little to gain through the extension approach. WjBscribe 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• One thought. I don't think the Essjay RfB should be taken as a comparison point for a well closed RfB. Essjay was promoted by a 'crat that had participated in the RfB and was support voter #141. We have a clear consensus today that voters should not be closing discussions. I suspect, though it is before my time, that the same consensus existed at the time. I know this because the decision left some of the community rankled enough that I was emailed about it when the Essjay controversy broke. GRBerry 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Essjay decision is interesting for a number of reasons - by my math it closed at 89.9% support. That's practically at the oft-quoted 90% figure and Cecropia, despite his criticisms of the close does not seem think the numbers were decisive [1]. That is a little hard to reconcile with his comment that he would not accept it as a precedent [2] - which rather begs the question, "A precedent for what?" As you say, some of the controversy may have resulted from Danny both supporting and closing (controversy would later result when Rdsmith4 would both support and close Danny's reconfirmation RfA) but I'm not entirely sure. Cecropia's post indicates he would have closed even though he had opposed it and Cecropia tends to have a pretty firm grasp of what is a legitimate action. In fact reviewing the discussions the main opposition seems to be based on the fact that Danny rarely closes RfAs/RfBs and so was out of touch with community ideas of consensus. Bias seems to have been a secondary concern - it would seem odd to say that a crat who has supported an RfA may not pass it but a crat who has opposed may fail it. Perhaps there was perceived to be a closer relationship between Danny and Essjay than the former simply having supported the latter. I think it wise to avoid closing where one has participated, we have always had enough bureaucrats that this need to happen. But to return to your starting point, I do not give the Essjay close as an example of one well closed, I simply listed all those closed below 90% (which it barely counts as). WjBscribe 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Taxman is one bureaucrat I know of that has closed RfAs that he supported/participated in. I don't think it is encouraged, but it is certainly not disallowed. It honestly doesn't matter who closes it - it matters if it was closed according to community consensus. Bureaucrats are the community as well. Majorly (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

Thank you for your kind words, and I shall take them to heart. I'll see you around in a couple of months or so, I hope :) -- Avi (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't say, because I imagine of all people WjB means them anyway, but the comments he leaves about closures are boilerplate and not individualized (usually). ;-) Avruch ^T —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Avi's message was individualised. I wrote a similar one for Wizardman, but then it would be odd if I expressed dramatically different sentiments to the two of them... WjBscribe 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, my bad then. I haven't seen you close enough RfBs I guess. Sorry! Avruch ^T 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for changing my username! --Eustress (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot approval opposed

Last month I posted to BN about how to handle a bot whose operator won't change something per community consensus and the BAG declines to recognize the consensus. At Wikipedia:AN/B#Community_proposal there is a consensus that Betacommand bots should respect the NoBots tag. When I brought this to the latest proposal atWikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Non-Free_Content_Compliance_Bot stating I would oppose this bot until it was made clear it would respect the NoBots tag, a BAGer closed the discussion as Approved 15 minutes later without ever addressing my oppose or the community consensus. Then the bot's operator full protected the page to prevent 2 non-admins from commenting further. We didn't hash everything out last month at BN, so what do you reccomend now to address this matter? MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I can about this. BAG is responsible for the approval of Bots - they have approved this Bot. Short of the community deciding it no longer wants BAG to determine the approval of Bots, and that it would like bureaucrats to do that instead, there isn't much I can do. As I understand it though, the speedy approval of clones of existing Bots is standard practice - not a sign of a conspiracy. WjBscribe 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the question I'm seeking an answer to is: How should the community address a situation in which the BAG has approved a bot against community consensus? In the recent RfBs, the candidates seemed to indicate they would review the request and what not in deciding whether or not it was a valid approval in giving the bot flag. Thats what I'm trying to figure out. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I think they misunderstood their role. If you have a problem with the way BAG is behaving, you need to gain a consensus to reform or abolish BAG or change its membership - their authority to approve Bots predates bureaucrats' technical ability to flag them. WjBscribe 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I see it now. Basically, its like a situation of an XfD contested closed before the DRV process was created. The only way to overturn an XfD in which the closing admin staunchly defended his close, would be to change the process and invent the DRV process. Sadly I doubt the environment is such that a DRV-Bot process would be welcomed. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =)

You probably get a lot of these but I just wanted to also say thank you for the username switch ... now I actually like my username and it makes me want to edit even more ... especially the soap article =) Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A user who left

What happened to User talk:Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko? Why did he leave? Basketball110 _{will you sign?} ♣ 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username usurpation

Hi there, I requested a username usupartion last week and you granted it last night so thanks :) anyway.. I think you forgot to move my old talk page to my new account. My old talk page is here: User talk:RIP-Acer so if you could take a look at that for me that would be great :D Acer (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - that should have happened automatically when you were renamed, must have been a glitch. WjBscribe 13:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Acer (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

You've got mail. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A reminder.

I just saw this, and I thought I'd mention:

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bureaucrats do not control Wikipedia. The community does. If you felt it was inappropriate to ignore consensus, you should not have done so, or at least admitted that you were ignoring all rules. Thanks. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I stand by my comment here - it would be rather arrogant of me to presume that my judgment was sounder than that of the other bureaucrats in that discussion. WjBscribe 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, stop trolling. WJB wanted to promote Riana, but there was no consensus with the other bureaucrats - it was the correct decision and if WJB had promoted, that would have been him ignoring a consensus of the crats and making a unilateral decision. That said, I do support WJB's thoughts that she should have been promoted. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat. I find your comment to be extremly disapointing, and actually without much (if indeed any) regard to the deliberation WJB in particular and other 'crats went through. Please re-consider this post. Pedro :  Chat  23:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with the tone and implications of this post, and really do urge Zenwhat to retract this. Will made a very difficult call, both as a bureaucrat and as a friend. Regardless of how I feel about the closure, not only do I believe it would be inappropriate for him to backtrack on his decision, I also believe it highly inappropriate to ask Jimbo to make his input on this. Sorry, that makes it sound like you initiated that discussion. I was just commenting in generalities. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Particularly as I have been quite vocal about unilateral Jimboisms in the past. I know you are trying to help, but I really think you should maybe give this 3 days, see if you still feel it's a bad call, and then seek input. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Weird. Well, if Riana doesn't seem to mind, then I shouldn't start any trouble, I guess. Sorry for butting my nose in. Disregard my remarks above. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look

Hi WJS,

I see you do a lot of work on the Redirects for Discussion page, so you might have some insights about shortcuts that would be useful for this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here. I suppose I should have listed it at the RfD page, but I didn't know RfD existed until after I got started. Please take a look. Thanks! Noroton (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have commented in the discussion there. WjBscribe 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult job

Hello WJBscribe. I must say, your job as a bureaucrat is quite difficult. I am disappointed to know that Riana's RfB didn't pass. I know that you wanted Riana's RfB to be successful. You did your best. I wish you all the best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deflagging

Per User_talk:Tim_Starling#Dev_bots, Portal namespace initialisation script (talk · contribs) and Pending deletion script (talk · contribs) can be de-flagged. MBisanz ^talk 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems unlikely either of those will not to run again (especially the first one). I have removed the flags given Tim's assent. WjBscribe 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:AGK#Apologies for rollback

You'll probably stumble across this anyway :) Just a courtesy note. AGK (contact) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Paradoxically, one of the few barnstars one can present to another user without any interaction with the receiving user is this one, in my opinion. For your contribution to Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion, a Socratic Barnstar. User:Krator (t c) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropod

This AfD appears to have been restored, and since you were the one who confirmed deletion, I was wondering if you knew what happened.Merechriolus (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, problem solved, thanks cookie.Merechriolus (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDIATION

Hi, Im kind of interested to be part of WP:MEDIATION but am a bit confused on what I should do to join. Do I just add my name to the list? or do I have t go through the approval thing as well? Im not a admin so can you help. Thanks Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No sorry, dont worry I found the proposal bit Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another deflag

Per Zscout Zbot370 (talk · contribs) can be deflagged. Per Borislav Bgbot (talk · contribs) can be deflagged. Should I save up like a list of 10 that can be deflagged at once or just come as people respond to the notice? MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Deflagged both. Up to you whether you want to prepare a list and then give it to me - I don't mind deflagging them as people respond though... WjBscribe 12:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal testing mediation

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Animal_testing#Close_mediation.3F. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin replied to me a few days ago saying she still wished to proceed but I have not heard again from her since then. Ultimately I am in your hands - we can crack on if you're all ready or close the case if you would now rather attempt to resolve the disputes in another manner. A case could always be started again at a future date. WjBscribe 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this can be closed, since it really doesn't seem to be performing any useful function. The article is quite stable and has greatly improved over the last few months, so there doesn't seem to be any pressing reason for this rather ill-defined and now completely inactive mediation. Any remaining problems that come up as part of the Good Article review can probably be resolved with discussion on the talk page, or we might even try a RfC if any specific issues arise in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, any progress on this? I think the GA reviewer might be holding off from making any judgement about the stability of the article until the mediation tag has been removed from the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tim, I completely missed your 2nd comment in this thread. Sorry I haven't acted on this - I will close the case in a few minutes. WjBscribe 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recall

Hey Will, thanks for your note regarding my self-inclusion into CAT:BOR. During the RfB I was asked about the Admins open to recall categorisation which has been subject of some discussion - I suggested that while the process may not be ideal, I included myself in it as more of a message to other editors that I am more than happy to be held accountable for my actions as an admin. Likewise as a 'crat. As for the details, I haven't really worked that out. I think it's a case-by-case problem depending on the level of concern over any misguided action I may have taken, the people who are showing concern (e.g. if other 'crats told me I wasn't doing "my job" properly then I'd probably consider that more seriously than a couple of editors new to Wikipedia) and my own feeling as to whether I may have blown it. I'm not sure the CAT:BOR is enough either and since these questions will be asked there too I summise that a properly defined process may be required. Thanks for your quick RfB closure and the welcome note by the way, if I ever get the chance to close an RfA or RfB ahead of you I'll be lucky! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27

You said here that under "Discussion" "Stealth canvassing to distort consensus is not completely unacceptable." Are you sure that's what you meant to say? John Carter (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No it wasn't - well spotted. Thanks :). WjBscribe 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for you to note, I got one of those emails too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wjbscribe, just wondering where can I find the policy that says that an rfa can be extended? Please reply on my talk page, thank you.Thright (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Actually, I just answered him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otolemur crassicaudatus

Hey Will. I just wanted to talk to you semi-informally before I consider something slightly more official. I don't know if you've had cause to bump into Otolemur crassicaudatus, but I did recently when they reverted two of my edits (with no explanation at all). In both cases, the edits were valid and I commented as such on their talk page, but was completely ignored. While awaiting their reply, I saw them give advice to another user regarding the {{nofootnotes}} template (don't use it basically). I felt I had to reply and say that the user concerned could use them if they wished - that is what they are there for.

This user is a self-confessed "recent changes" patroller, but they seem to jump the gun far too often, and aside from talking to them (which I suspect will go unnoticed, judging by other's comments on their talk page), is there anything official I can do to get them to listen and perhaps stop trigger-fingering? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

You have mail, WJB. -- Avi (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you get the e-mail? -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so sorry. I did get it but it looks like I got distracted by later events. Will respond now. WjBscribe 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Avrumd

I see you blocked Avrumd an indef block, after he violated WP:CANVAS - which he probably didn't know exists. I think that he should have been warned before the block. Any reason you blocked him without warning him first? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Od Mishehu, I think you might be missing some vital information (or at least I hope you are because the alternative is rather troubling). Please read Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#RfA_participation_needed_to_offset_canvassing, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfA_participation_needed_to_offset_canvassing and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#RfA_participation_needed_to_offset_canvassing. This person created the account in order to use the "email this user" feature to spam editors he/she thought would oppose at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Benjah-bmm27. This wasn't a simple canvassing case but a deliberate attempt to infect and derail a present Request for Adminship. I was the recipient of one of these emails and I can assure you that warning the user would not have been an appropriate response. While I would like to believe their story, I find it rather difficult to believe. There are some bright red flags that make put some question marks over their explanation but I don't really want to elaborate at risk of educating the puppeteers. I'm all for AGF and giving people fair warning before blocking but I feel that a warning in this case would have been an extraordinary under-reaction and a rather shocking instance of incompetence. Please do review the pages I linked to above as I think it may give you a clearer picture. Cheers, Sarah 11:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Scribe, I've declined Avrum's unblock request so that their page would be removed from the unblock category, but I thought you might like to review their rather interesting explanation.:) Cheers, Sarah 11:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah. Od Mishehu, I might have tempted to accept the explanation but for two factors in particular:

1. This isn't a question of someone using their own account to send canvassing messages, which might have been innocent, but of creating a specific account to do so.
2. Not only did they create a new account, but they did so using a suspected open proxy to disguise the IP they usually edit from

I'm sorry but the extent of the attempt at subterfuge rather undermines this account's claim that they were acting in good faith. I would point out that its master account (which edits from a different IP) remains free to edit as we have no way of identifying it. WjBscribe 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned that you might offer to let Avrumd be unblocked, but block him from sending e-mails. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is impossible. If it is possible, can you tell me how? Ral315 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're quite right. That isn't possible - will amend my post accordingly. WjBscribe 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot flag for NotifyBot

Could you flag the NotifyBot account so I can run BJBot task 4 under it? BJ^Talk 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not really possible for me to flag account on my own authority, I need a current member of the Bot Approvals Group to approve new bot accounts. This seems especially necessary in this case given the issues that task 4 is causing... WjBscribe 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)r

[edit] Mediation Committee

Hello. Thank you for the welcome, I look forward to working with you. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion of my user subpages

I've decided, after some thought, to request undeletion of user subpages I had asked you to delete in the past. The basic rationale is that, although I am ashamed of what I did, I'm not ashamed that I owned up to what I did.

Thus, please undelete the following, if possible:

• User:Placeholder account
• User:Placeholder account/RFA review
• User:YechielMan/Drafts and archives/RFA review (a redirect)
• User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/RFA review
• User talk:YechielMan/Drafts and archives/RFA review (a redirect)
• User talk:Shalom/Drafts and archives/RFA review
• User:Shalom/Other stuff

Thank you. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored them all for you - is there any chance you could move them all to subpages of your new username? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I've re-restored 2 that were deleted again as they still had a {tl|du-u1}} template on them, and removed that template. WjBscribe 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the little charmer's vandalism to my userpage. Much appreciated! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.

PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.

For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, noted. WjBscribe 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another deflag 2

LinkBot (talk · contribs) per Nickj and per RTV message MarshBot (talk · contribs) can both be deflagged at your leisure. MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

JoeBot (talk · contribs) per JoeSmack, M7bot (talk · contribs) per M7, and Fritzbot (talk · contribs) per Fritz can also be deflagged. MBisanz ^talk 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done all 5. WjBscribe 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Kevin Rector, KevinBot (talk · contribs) and per The Anome, The Anomebot (talk · contribs) and per Mike Peel, Peelbot (talk · contribs), and per The Paranoid One, TPO-bot (talk · contribs), can all be deflagged. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you, WJB, for doing these for us. And, MBisanz, for finding / notifying them. SQL^{Query me!} 04:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done those 4. Not a problem at all - only takes a couple of minutes. WjBscribe 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Rory096, RoryBot (talk · contribs) and per Gerritholl, Topjabot (talk · contribs) can be deflagged. Thanks again for helping with this rather inane task. MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Both done. WjBscribe 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Innovative vandalism

Wow! I have to say I'm impressed at the innovative vandalism - quite impressive! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though of course Delete is a redirect to Deletion - I would have explained why double redirects should be avoided but suspected that the IP wouldn't be that interested... WjBscribe 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

I see you closed this as keep. I just checked the article and saw its a copyvio. I tagged it as well. Several of the users articles have been copyvio's. I'm watching what s/he is creating. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more:

• The Ride-In (CSI: NY episode).
• If Looks Could Kill (CSI: Miami episode)
• Death Pool 100
• Heart of Glass (CSI: NY episode)
• Can You Hear Me Now? (CSI: NY episode)
• Going Under (CSI: Miami episode)
• Some Buried Bones (CSI: NY episode)
• The Lying Game (CSI: NY episode)
• Obsession (CSI: NY episode)
• Silent Night (CSI: NY episode)
• Sweet Sixteen (CSI: NY episode)
• Speed Kills (CSI episode)
• Cop Killer (CSI episode)
• What You See Is What You See (CSI: NY episode)

There might be a couple more. But, you might as well go through he/r contribs. Thanks for the cooperation. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the only one of these that wasn't deleted already - well spotted. I see the user has been warned and blocked for uploading copyvios before. I've given them a final warning, if this continues I think they may need to blocked permanently. WjBscribe 11:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like we may have to go for an indefinite: Two more, s/he just created:

• Rio (CSI: Miami episode)
• Born to Kill (CSI: Miami episode)

Tagged them both. Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one. All of them I listed today were actually made before the final warning.

And Here's To You, Mrs Azrael. Thanks. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Milk's Favourite Cookie is lying. S/he did not found those sites that are violated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.215.230 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion (CSI)

Can you prove that I violated the copyrights? I created those pages doesn't mean I'm the one violated the copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaAn94 (talk • contribs)

You created pages by copying large chunks of texts from other websites - they were identical word-for-word to material found by Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs), which was posted on the internet before you created the articles. For example exactly the same text as The Ride-In (CSI: NY episode), was found here. I am serious about this being your last warning, you need to write material yourself instead of using what you find elsewhere. WjBscribe 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the names of the guest stars, the airdate or the episode title need a copyright? Beside, why are you so sure I'm the one who copy the synopsis? Prove to me why you said that I violated the copyright? Somebody can paste the synopsis there after I created the page. I'm serious I want you to prove that I violated the copyright!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaAn94 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The synopsis is always added by your account or an IP that edits within 2 or 3 minutes of you creating the article. Given that you created the articles on different occasions, and that the IPs are all closely link, I thinks it pretty clear that you are just signing out of your account to add them. Don't try and game the system by attempting to add the copyvios anonymously. WjBscribe 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm dumb enough to play the wikipedia users, after hundreds of people has been blocked due to vandalisme, I find you are dumber than me. I find it pointless to argue with you because I know you will find excuses so that I look guilty. Fine, delete all the articles I created immediately, that will make me feel much better. And DON'T WORRY, I WILL NEVER EDIT ANY PAGE OF WIKIPEDIA ANYMORE, SINCE YOU GUYS THINK I VIOLATED THE COPYRIGHTS. THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME I EDIT THE PAGE OF WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.215.204 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh just to let you know, the past "copyvio" warning for me, it's a mistake. Because I copy those short synopsis from a wikipedia page. And as far as I concerned, I don't think the short synopsis need a copyright because 6 websites use the same short synopsis. But none of them make a report. (CSIfiles.com, TV.com, tv.yahoo.com...and the others you can find by yourself because I guarentee you you will find more).

Make you easier to delete every articles I created. Every episode (at List of CSI: Miami episode) from season 3-5 (starting from the episode "Lost Son" until the episode "If Looks Could Kill, except for "Crime Wave" and "Rampage") and season 6. Every episode at List of CSI: NY episodes. I can't remember the others, but I will let you know. As stated, I will never edited any pages of wikipedia anymore. You can start relax today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaAn94 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well given that the IP you are using is closely connected to those which arrive shortly after your account created those articles to add a copyvio synopsis, there is now no doubt in my mind that you are simply signing out of your account to add material that you know is not appropriate. It does not matter how widely circulated a synopsis is, it is not free content and therefore cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. WjBscribe 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "More" Copyvio's

Here is some more I found:

• Consequences (CSI episode)
• All in the Family (CSI: NY episode)
• Happily Never After (CSI: NY episode)
• Dead Woman Walking (CSI: Miami episode)
• Dead Air (CSI: Miami episode)
• Without a Trace (season 4)
• Free Fall (CSI: Miami episode)
• Without a Trace (season 6)
• Without a Trace (season 5)
• From The Grave (CSI: Miami episode)
• Blood In The Water (CSI: Miami episode)
• Guerillas in the Mist (CSI: Miami episode)
• Shattered (CSI: Miami episode)
• Double Jeopardy (CSI: Miami episode)

Although I think they may all be deleted by the time you see this message. Thanks for the help. Please also keep in mind, that some articles only have small copyvio's and some editors are choosing just to remove the copyvio instead of deleting the article. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Too late :P - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I was pointed to speak to you [3]

I am currently writing to you since I am filing an RFC on an admin [4] I am wary about bringing this up on the AN/I because i'm fearful of being blocked. I was also threatened by the same admin [5] . So I guess you're the one to speak to. Even one admin has stated that JzG was being a bit brash on my old block (now over) [6] but I guess hasn't seen the whole story. He has also used profane language towards me saying i was bitching [7] stated that I was going to get a kick in my arse [8] and threatened me [9] after I asked for help [10] Uconnstud (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you were sent to me, I have no more authority over an admin than anyone else. JzG has a direct way of expressing himself but my experience is that if he's telling someone their conduct is problematic, it usually is. I'm not seeing "profanity" here and I really don't think your RfC has much merit. Instead of complaining about JzG's style, I suggest you think about changing the conduct that has resulted in your being blocked twice in recent days. Your attitude towards Metros has also been problematic - he isn't harassing you, he is giving you valid advice. I suggest you stop picking fights with everyone here and settle down to editing the project calmly. WjBscribe 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The first was fair, I did violate 3rr. The second was highly questionable. I just recently found out that my case even though it isn't complete isn't the first case against JzG. He has another RFC against him Requests for comment JzG2. Uconnstud (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Clarification

Sorry I never replied at User talk:Carcharoth#Clarification (will end up in the Feb/March archive). I see that MBsanz has mentioned Betacommand's off-wiki comment at the arbitration case. See here. So you might want to enter your clarification there. And thanks for clarifying that in the first place - it was much appreciated and I, for one, don't see you as having had a great role in all this, so no worries from me there about you, if you know what I mean. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probably add the diff of your clarification to that... MBisanz ^talk 07:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you mention other bots in your evidence, would you be able to explain how Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BaldBot is listed as denied, but is also on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Approved? Seems like one of those weird situations. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's meant to function as a list of all bots that have ever been approved - BaldBot was approved for a short time, in controversial circumstances. We haven't been removing the bots deflagged from inactivity from that list, and BetacommandBot stayed listed during the period when it was deflagged by Nichalp last year. Given that BaldBot never ran as an approved bot, it probably could be removed from the list. WjBscribe 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more how 1 BAGer speedy approved it, and then other BAGers speedy unapproved it. But I guess that really isn't an issue for this RFAR, but more for teh debate on the BAG reform. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Spotted a couple of typos or unclear wordings in your evidence here: "First when it was being proposed that a bot should betacommand for FU image tagging work." and "I although think it may lead to the operators being less responsive". The latter looks like it should be "I also think", and maybe the former is missing a "replace betacommandBOT"? Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out - fixed. WjBscribe 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion e/c

Yeah, sorry about that, had everything set up and we e/c'd half way through. No harm done I hope. All the best The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing comments

Re this

I'm sorry, I don't normally do that kind of thing, but it really struck me as .. well.. mean. Yes, this guy was a pain in the ass for some people, yes he got blocked (which is still being discussed), but his comments in the MfD should be judged on their own. However, I shouldn't have removed your comment, no matter how much I disagreed with it. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why it bothered me so much. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for his block was "Persistent disruption on XfD" - he was blanket voting keep on every MfD for instance (see here. You don't think that's relevant? WjBscribe 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the MfD page. Regardless of that, I really am sorry I just up and removed your comment completely like that. I wasn't thinking with a level head. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted - no harm done. And you're probably right, the nature of their disruptive activity was probably a more significant thing to mention than the fact they were blocked for it. WjBscribe 05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Round Table Issue

Greetings, currently on the Oxford Round Table there is an 'External Link' that I believe does not adhere to Wiki guidelines. Other editors on the page believe that it does. I am writing to see if 'mediation' is the best thing or if I should just post to 'Reliable Sources' notice board for resolution. PigeonPiece (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a few paths to explore before you turn to mediation - which can be quite a long and involved process. The noticeboard would be one option, alternatively you can also an uninvolved person to provide a third opinion through WP:30. If outside input doesn't help, mediation may help though given the nature of the dispute it needn't be too formal and the mediation cabal should be able to assist you. WjBscribe 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. There are more than two editors involved, so I do not believe I can list it on the page you suggested. What should I do if three editors are involved? PigeonPiece (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think WP:30 is suitable for your dispute, how about asking for more input through a Wikipedia:Requests for comment about the article? The instructions are fairly straightforward. WjBscribe 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we already have a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on the Oxford Round Table talk page. It was posted on 8 March but has only received one comment. It is on a different issue but involves the same parties.Academic38 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gah

Gchat? Daniel (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you check Michael Lucas page edits?

Hi WJB, I was wondering if you could check the latest edits to Michael Lucas (director) (specifically my revert here. If I remember correctly, you're somewhat familiar with the situation there and with a certain banned editor. I'd rather not go to the ANI board so as to minimize the concern for another editor at this point, if this can be resolved here. If you need more info, I can email. Also, there have been a few pic uploads at commons which concern me as well, I've left a note on their admin noticeboard. Hope I haven't read this wrong, R. Baley (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm pretty sure that's another sockpuppet of the person that's been harassing David Shankbone. It looks like the images they uploader to Commons were copyvios too, so I've blocked them both here and there. I've asked Raul654 to double check my conclusions at a technical level. WjBscribe 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it. R. Baley (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question

Hello, I just had a question about RfB's. I have participated in a few RfA's and have noticed that to be nominated, one needs about 70-75% approval rating (depending on the strength of the pro's and con's. As far as RfB's, I have seen users with stats like 237/39/4 not passing. What is the decicing factors for crats?--Sallicio 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well although RfAs and RfBs are not pure votes, the community does have expectations that a certain amount of support is necessary to be successful and crats work within those. At RfA it is usually expected that someone with the support of more than 80% of the community is very likely to pass and someone with less than 70% is very unlikely to. It has been the position that RfBs are harder to pass, with more unanimity required. The traditional view is that 90% support is needed to pass an RfB with only very limited bureaucrat discretion immediately below that figure. I expressed some disagreement with the strict application of that figure in a discussion with other bureaucrats about the RfB you refer to - see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion - but was in a minority. There has been a community discussion of RfB standards at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar, the results of which are being discussed now. The standard for RfBs that I would propose to encapsulate the arguments raised on that page is:

"Whilst RfB is not a vote, it is generally expected that RfBs with more than 90% will be successful, whereas those with less than 80% will not be. Bureaucrats should assess the level of consensus bearing in mind the high levels of community trust expected for appointment."

It remains to be seen whether that becomes the new approach taken in assessing the outcomes of RfBs. Hope that answers your question. WjBscribe 03:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It does, thank you! --Sallicio 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship?

Thanks for the positive words on my talk page. I've definitely toyed with the idea of requesting administrator status, but then I remind myself that an RfA alone could become an infinite time sink (foreshadowing actual admin status). I guess I'm not ready to make the commitment, but I appreciate your confidence (and I know where to find you).
As for DYK, I'm glad it got updated (although the DYK list doesn't really fill the available space) because I was running out of steam in trying to find another hook that meets criteria. --Orlady (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas

LucasEnt08 left me a comment on my talk page saying it was ok with you and David to upload those pictures after I left a message about COI. Is this person really associated with Lucas Entertainment? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The pictures that were added will probably be questioned in regards to where they came from, so IMO the images (like this one need more information on sources or else someone might tag them for deletion.

The new photos definitely come from Lucas Entertainment. When I went to interview him, I helped Michael Lucas pick out some good photos for the site (this one and [Image:MLucas2.jpg this one] and he apparently decided to release two more GFDL. I've been in contact with both Lucas and his PR people, as has WJBscribe. --David Shankbone 13:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Aleta Sing 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Easter

Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

I notice that you deleted this redirect. Considering that we had an earlier DRV over just this action and it was overturned, I strongly urge you to undelete this redirect. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My rationale is on the talkpage. I urge you to consider it. The redirect does not serve as a navigational aid as you still get the same article by typing the name into the search bar. The presence of the redirect was a source of frustration for the subject of the article, and lead to hastle for our editors. Please just let it go - I realise you weren't happy the article was deleted but this is just a redirect. It isn't worth the trouble... WjBscribe 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that got g8ed away. See Talk:Daniel Brandt. In any event, the DRV made it explicit that any such deletion should occur by an RfD not a unilateral decision. Furthermore, since Brandt's main objection is to the high google hit of Wikipedia on his name, and this will occur anyways, this doesn't do anything other than encourage him further. I strongly urge you to reconsider. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have hoped the talkpage might have stayed long enough for people to see my reasons. Still they stand - the redirect didn't actually help navigation and caused distress to the subject of the article. I stand by my decision, you really need to give some thought to what good could possible come out of you contesting it. WjBscribe 02:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just noticed this discussion here. Did it redirect to PIR? If so, wouldn't that be completely appropriate, even given the "distress" it caused to the subject of the deleted article? Bellwether ^B_C 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It did. If you type "Daniel Brandt" into the search bar, what article do you get as the first hit? So the redirect (it was a bear redirect without any history) was of very little navigational help. There was a mild concern about the redirect in that it links Brand to PIR, which is only one project he has been involved in which may not be "fair coverage". More important was the extreme resentment the subject bore to the redirect and the amount of disruption its presence was causing, which meant people were dealing with drama rather than making Wikipedia better. We have lost nothing by deleting the redirect, I assure you there has been a very real gain for Wikipedia from it. WjBscribe 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. What about those of us (I'm one), who do not use the search feature, but rather type the name of what we're looking for after our address bar brings up "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"? That just points to an empty page. Also, is it a good habit to get in, this deleting articles and redirects because the subject is "distressed"? Bellwether ^B_C 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not very happy with practice of deleting things cos people have guns to our heads. I wasn't involved in the deletion discussions about the article and have never really formed a view on it - this was however just a redirect. I think here a deleted page is actually more honest for the user - we don't have content about Brandt, just a mention at PIR which can be found using the search function we offer. Its not a perfect solution and "lesser of two evils" may have played a part. But I think there's enough of a net gain for this to have been the right thing to do. WjBscribe 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Last question, I promise. Isn't Brandt a big (and very visible) critic of WP? If so, why should he not expect WP to have an article about him? He made himself notable enough for an article, did he not? And isn't deleting the redirect at least partly because he was "distressed" just feeding this... "problem" of his? Bellwether ^B_C 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I've never made up my mind as to whether or not we should have an article about him. There seem to be rather a spectrum of views around about just how "notable" someone should be for us to have articles about them against their wishes - I do not in any way support the deletion of Don Murphy, where I think the loss to the project would fair outweigh the gain made. My hope is that removing something we didn't really benefit from about Brandt may result in him losing interest. Time will tell. WjBscribe 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I've moved the deletion rationale at Talk:Daniel_Brandt to Talk:Daniel Brandt/Deletion rationale to avoid further speedy deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth do you think you're doing? This was already taken to DRV before, and restored per community consensus. You don't get to make this decision on your own. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The DRV you're referring to was for when Doc deleted the redirect and edit history of the page - a lot of the discussion was about GFDL issues. In this case it was just a redirect, and I have made it clear why I believe the project is better off without it. Oh, and I would appreciate a more civil tone to conversation than "What on earth do you think you're doing", if you don't mind. WjBscribe 04:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9 was specifically about "just a redirect". -- Ned Scott 05:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the commentators seem to be talking about GFDL - there's no real discussion about the encyclopedic merits of the redirect. WjBscribe 05:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That is your (flawed) opinion, but it is not enough to allow you to delete the redirect and then protect it from recreation, and you darn well knew it would be controversial. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I take this to DRV, would you be willing to let the redirect stand in RfD? It would be a lot less messy (and possibly less heated) and likely come to the same result. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Its an option, though it is a less attended venue. If it went to RfD, would you agree to the redirect remaining deleted during the discussion? It wouldn't impede discussion... WjBscribe 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea, because it seems to say that the deletion is ok before the discussion has even started. I don't think there's an urgent reason for having it deleted now as opposed to after the RfD is closed. I would like to ask you to consider undeleting it for the RfD, however, having it undeleted is not required for the discussion. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to undelete it. I have yet to hear an argument as to what benefit this redirect brings to the project that makes it worth the considerable trouble it is causing. Had it any real encyclopedic value I would not have deleted it. It seems to me that if its going to remain deleted during the discussion, DRV is a more sensible forum than RfD. WjBscribe 08:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's still an opinion (not the consensus), and this isn't the WIkipedia equivalent to "guilty until proven innocent". Most, if not all, of the 3rd DRV's overturns did address the value of the article simply as a redirect, regardless of GFDL issues. -- Ned Scott 08:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ned, do you believe the redirect has encyclopedic value that makes it worth keeping despite the hastle it causes? If so, I'm listening. But don't push this just on a point of principle about past DRVs. If you don't think the restoration of the redirect makes Wikipedia better, lets leave it deleted. WjBscribe 08:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This has obvious value; 1) it preserves the attempted consensus solution to the Brandt matter. Deleting it opens up that can of worms. 2) It is routine when we engage in BLP1E or anything similar to have a redirect to the main article for ease of navigation (especially in regard to typing in leading immediately to it, or someone typing the name in as a wikilink, assuming we have an article 3) Brandt has made it very clear that the sole reason he does not like this redirect is because it bumps up the google ranking. The previous DRV decided correctly that we don't destroy our pages to harm our own google ranking. Brandt is welcome to talk to google 4) Brandt has also made clear that he is no less satisfied as long as there is any mention of his name here. It demonstrates deep naivete if not outright amnesia of the situation if you beleive he will be at all satisfied by the deletion in question. He wasn't satisfied by the removal of the Vietnam activism. He wasn't satisified with our merger, and he isn't going to be satisfied with this. All it does is emboldens him. And frankly, an emboldened Daniel Brandt does far more damage to the encyclopedia due to his harassment and outing of editors than almost anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but none of those are reasons why the user of Wikipedia benefits from this redirect existing - they are about precedent and process for the sake of it. I understand that you resent Daniel Brandt, but keeping a redirect solely because we can when the subject strongly objects is not a good reason. The deletion of this redirect has already produced beneficial results and I see now way in which Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is harmed by it. Frankly, and I hate to be blunt, given your behaviour during deletion discussions about Mr Brandt's article, I don't think you're well placed to lecture me about community norms. WjBscribe 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So, to boil that down - the only benefit to the encyclopedia is the "ease of navigation" for people who type Daniel Brandt in directly. It doesn't seem like anything done on Wikipedia is necessary to make Brandt 'bolder.' The other arguments are trying to preserve the consensus in the DRV for its own sake - a worthy goal, but not if you can't cite a more material benefit than helping people by directing requests for Daniel Brandt directly to PIR rather than a search function. (Sorry to butt in!) Avruch ^T 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are valid goals. Damaging the encyclopedia in a way that doesn't make Brandt any happier and won't stop him at all is not a good thing. And overriding clear community consensus is an inherently bad thing when that consensus is consistent with policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well - let me ask a question. I'm sure I'd know the answer if I had the experience of you, Will or Ned, but I don't: How long after the close of a DRV is a page protected from deletion? Permanently? 6 months? Avruch ^T 15:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The DRV ended with the possibility of an RfD. That's still an option. The proponents of deletion at the time recognized that the consensus was against such a deletion. Given the prior consensus, the appropriate thing is to just take it to RfD, not do the exact same out of process behavior as before. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Where the keeping of a page has been counseled at DRV, that page should not be summarily deleted (except, I suppose, where the policy underlying the DRV discussion has changed; even then discussion prior to deletion is to be preferred, but I recognize that the community, wrongly IMHO, have informally sanctioned the summary deletion of certain BLPs that survived AfD under a formulation of BLP substantially less restrictive than that for which a consensus of the community is said now to exist, with discussion to be had thereafter at DRV). To be sure, consensus can change, and no decision taken by the community permanently forecloses on the possibility of our deleting (or restoring) a given article, but the pronouncement of a single editor does not effect a change (I recognize that WJB considers his deletion not to be inconsistent with the DRV, submitting that it did not reach the issue of whether a redirect ought to exist other than for GFDL-mandated history preservation, but that several others construe the DRV differently suggests that there is no readily apparent consensus for his view, such that discussion of the issue should have preceded deletion). Joe 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe, I have difficulty faulting your logic. I had reason to decide that in this case immediate action was warranted and beneficial. I do not regret my decision. Consensus is subject to change and it is a longstanding custom that one should not be restricted by rules that have the effect of hampering what is the right outcome simply because they exist. I have do not deny that there was some unorthodoxy in this action and remain open to discussing it. I remain of the view that my action was timely and in Wikipedia's best interests overall. WjBscribe 03:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've brought it up at DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion question

Hey WJB, if I (while looking at new pages, or otherwise) find an article that meets a speedy deletion criterion, is it ok to go ahead and delete it, or is anyone supposed to tag it and let someone else do the deletion to make sure another pair of eyes checks it out? Should I only delete articles someone else has tagged? Aleta ^Sing 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are sure that the article meets the speedy deletion criteria, you may delete it immediately. If you aren't, it does no harm to tag it so that someone else can take a look and see whether they agree. WjBscribe 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought. I wanted to be sure though. Aleta ^Sing 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good day

If you have a moment to chat. -- Ѕandahl 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek#Coolcat prohibited from mediating

Hi, I was wondering your position on this arbitration remedy. After all it is only fair to ask Mediation Committee what they think about this remedy as after all it concerns MedCom most.

I am currently indefinitely banned from mediation until Mediation Committee officially appoints me as a mediator. In other words I am not allowed to unofficially mediate. Had I been in your seat, I would feel very uncomfortable in officially appointing a person sanctioned from mediation for obvious reasons. Since I cannot unofficially practice mediation and gain experience and hence the trust of the Mediation Committee, this remedy will forever never expire as it appears.

I also want to add that I am not very interested in mediation right now. I do not have the confidence in my self among other reasons for the task. The presence of this remedy however is a cause of disruption and trolling on non-mediation related issues like RFAs. "Who would want an admin who is indefinitely sanctioned by arbcom" for example.

-- Cat ^chi? 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hello could you please take a quick look at this. It really is a wierd situation Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Usurpations#Wierd_situation. Thanks so much for your time, I appreciate (as a 'crat) you must be very busy! Thanks again...--Camaeron (t/c) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful! Thanks so much...are you sure we arent breaking any rules? --Camaeron (t/c) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no rules being broken - a weeks notification is required and they have had a lot more notice than that. WjBscribe 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I trust you know more about these things...Thanks again! --Camaeron (t/c) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow everything went really smoothly. All my pages have been redirected (now I need to fix all the links!). Thanks!!--Camaeron (t/c) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHU/U

Are you planning to make a decision on this request? It's over a week overdue. Or should I ask another bureaucrat to see to it? seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you ask him to agree to a one sec block to link to his current block log? I'll take another look at it later... WjBscribe 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

He's said ok. So you can just perform the rename, and I can sort out the pages and blocking. You should probably do the rename with automatic page moves disabled, since they need to be merged. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As a related note to CHU/U, would you like us to ask SUL requests for confirmation that they are the account they are claiming to be? It might be a bit neurotic, but I think if someone gamed the system, it could potentially be bad. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets trust them. We're going to have a lot of those to deal with. Only the legitimate owner will be able to actually unify the login - if another user comes along and says they should have been given the name, we can fix it fairly easily. If we start seeing abuse, requirements may need to be stricter but for now I'm tempted to keep it simple. WjBscribe 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I just noticed this thread on meta. If what I understand him to be saying is true, we could have a large problem on our hands. What are your thoughts? seresin ( ¡? ) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of this issues - I reported it to the stewards on IRC. A fix should be developed soon. This is a trial implementation of SUL, bugs were to be expected... WjBscribe 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Oxford Round Table Help

I need help with two items. First, I believe one of the External Links on the Oxford Round Table page is not a helpful link. In fact it is a non-sensical blog/ forum. We need help. Also, the editors on that page agreed to use an article and now I have proposed a cited addition from that article and everyone is against the addition. Please help us or direct our struggling page to help elsewhere. ThankyouPigeonPiece (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ILJR2 ask for User:ILJR account

Hello,

may you explain me what is the conclusion of the Changing username demand ?

You add these notes :

• The target username has made edits to Wikipedia that are now deleted. Usernames with deleted edits only can usually be usurped.
• The current owner of the target username has been notified of this usurpation request.
• The current owner of the target username does not have an email address specified.

Will it be OK ?

Thank you for your explanation (I do not know about this procedure)

ILJR2 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - it should be OK. User:ILJR has a week to refuse to be renamed. If he doesn't, the account is yours. WjBscribe 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand

Thanks a lot

ILJR2 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Leningrad

The article is "besieged" by a user from Finland who keeps deleting facts about collaborations of Finnish forces and Nazi Germany during the years of the siege of Leningrad in WWII. Looks like a heavy POV editing that makes the article poorer, weaker, contradicting with the Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources. Many referenced facts were in the article for months, until this user started this one-sided reduction.130.166.33.54 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deflags

Per Werdna, Werdnabot (irc) (talk · contribs) can be deflagged. Since there is some opposition to the idea of asking Bot ops if it is ok to deflag their inactive accounts, I'm gonna place my idea of asking those who've been inactive for 6 months on indef hold. MBisanz ^talk 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've made a comment on the reasons why I think withdrawing flags from bots that will not be used again is a good idea here. WjBscribe 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is forum?

Hello! Сan you speak why is forum?--123FM (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

Hi WJBscribe! I think we first met dealing with LGBT issues or even on Matt Sanchez. I would appreciate your advice as I'm dealing with a ban against me that has caught me by surprise as I wasn't warned or even notified of the discussion until I was banned and now I feel I may have to simply pack it all in, which would be unfortunate. I thought the ban was a bit heavy-handed but am unsure how to advocate for myself on this besides replying to the concerns raised. Any advice appreciated, thanks! Benjiboi 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still looking for help on this, the new thread is here Any advice? Banjiboi 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

As per your offer at [11], please feel welcome to go ahead and rename my account to User:McCormack (large second C). Thanks! --JamesMcCormack (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Someone did it! I assume it was you - many thanks! --McCormack (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nikon DSLR cameras RfM

Will, the Template:Nikon DSLR cameras rfm has been sitting for over a week now. I was initially going to reject for insufficient attempts at dispute resolution, and I seem to recall you also were, before noting that you were leaving off handling until it was established whether or not the case could be handled by a non-Committee mediator. When you have a moment, would you mind handling this? Regards, Anthøny 14:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Painbearer usurpation

Actually, he did respond to my note, stating that it would be fine. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't watching your talkpage for a response... WjBscribe 03:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promotion and UTC

Hey WJB, I was thinking about your recent promotion - it was due to end 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC) but watchlist tells me it's only just gone past 16:00 UTC... this clearly relates to the clocks going forward but (and this may sound dumb but I can't remember), should only promotions that go over time differences be closed out after 168 hours instead of 7 "days"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one hour matters in the long run, especially as the result there was pretty clear. Majorly (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no problem at all but I was more curious than anything. Pesky daylight saving... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, I forgot the clocks changed yesterday. I get so used to being on GMT that I end up assuming my time = Wikipedia time. A few crats have a habit of closing requests several hours early when the result is clear, so its not a real problem but I do personally like to give them the full time. WjBscribe 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I just followed suit in an equally clear promotion. But, like you, I'd prefer to let the grains of sand run out. No bother. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you ever wish to show a similar zeal for renaming users - you know where WP:CHU is... ;) WjBscribe 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know! I ought to broaden my 'cratizons... I'll get more involved asap. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I will be away with pretty limited internet access for a week starting Thurs, so I may nudge you then to see if you can find a bit of time to help out Kingturtle. WjBscribe 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another deflagging

Per Fetofs ; Fetofsbot (talk · contribs) and Fetofsbot2 (talk · contribs) may be deflagged. So far we've deflagged 27 inactive bots out of ~400 total accounts, so while it may not be a dramatic housecleaning, I think it is working. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done. WjBscribe 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penis award

Given that per MediaWiki talk:Bad image list, the list is supposed to be less than 10 KB, and it's around 9.5 KB now, is this really a good idea? In general, should we allow user page exemptions? Listing Port (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if it reaches 10 KB, we'll know what the first pages to remove are... WjBscribe 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)