User talk:WJBscribe

User:WJBscribe	User talk:WJBscribe	User:WJBscribe/Gallery	User:WJBscribe/Barnstars	User:WJBscribe/Drafts
Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Email

Hello Will. You have an email from me. Mellie ♥ 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Received, I will reply shortly. WjBscribe 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Counter-revolutionary

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)

WJBscribe, as I commented here and here, my independent review of Counter-revolutionary contributions and checkuser evidence shows abusive use of the account and an indefinite block is warranted. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:00, 7 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. WjBscribe 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots. Could you help with the list on the talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears complete - I am certainly not aware of any others. WjBscribe 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Machines 2

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. WjBscribe 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try my best to source the article. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci

Hi. Why did you block user Mathsci (talk · contribs) on June 5? Can you point me to the diffs and explain the situation to me? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 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? WjBscribe 19:21, 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,[1] and he spotted a questionable diff [2] 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. Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 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. WjBscribe 19:51, 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). Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 9 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. WjBscribe 02:28, 13 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 Fengshen 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)(I haven't changed signature yet)

Done. WjBscribe 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rejected request for mediation

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:

• User:MJCdetroit has only just come back off vacation.
• User:Mjb1981 has not made an edit since June 22nd.
• User:The High Commander has not made an edit since July 5th (and could possibly be on a wikibreak).
• User:Angstriddenyouth has not made an edit since July 3rd.

This leaves User:Beamathan and User:Fyunck(click) who didn't sign at all, and User:Colonel Warden and User:Husond who signed disagree. This means realistically four users could have made a stand and didn't sign, the other 4 probably have/had real-life commitments. So, is 4 users not signing too many to get the request unrejected? Deamon138 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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. WjBscribe 02:04, 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. WjBscribe 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

True lol. Anyway, thanks for answering my questions. Deamon138 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Meta admin confirmations

See July 2008 confirmation bureaucrat chat talkpage. Kylu (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) ... WjBscribe 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka

Elonka has been threatening me with false accusations of harassment and stalking. I ask your help to mediate this dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 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. WjBscribe 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of this deals with the restrictions that are being put into place at Quackwatch, and with specific editors including ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and the gross disruptions that have ensued as a result. seicer | talk | contribs 18:48, 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. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 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 | contribs 20:40, 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. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 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.[3][4][5][6] 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)

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. Kelly ^hi! 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 [7]. 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. WjBscribe 02:24, 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 - Kelly ^hi! 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. WjBscribe 03:00, 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 - Kelly ^hi! 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)

Meh - thanks, Carcharoth, but it's over so far as I am concerned. I'll leave it to others. Kelly ^hi! 03:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

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)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Usurp

Ive Filed a Usurp on July 7 can you give me an estimate on when it will go through? thankyou ElectricalExperiment 16:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Requests left here will be filled no earlier than July 15, 2008.". –xenocidic (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)