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

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)

Tapadh Leibh (Thank You)...

...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.

I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.

Thank you so much for all your help and support, Will. If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))

And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?

Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)

Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.

Congrats

Wield us! Wield us!

Congratulations on your most successful RfB. Here are your new tools: the squeegee, sponge and chalk. Sorry for my initial neutral stance, I shouldn't really have let a single, recent, unconfirmed impression I had of your communicability interfere with a hundred other positive impressions I had had for a long time. Again, congrats. Festive regards, Húsönd 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to offer my congrats as well. I initially went with a weak support—but I was swayed by your knowledgeable answers to the questions and by two other 'crats insisting that you were needed. May I just say well earned and deserved. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Secretlondon (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations; beer? Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.32.52 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Well, it got done before I got a chance to !vote. Sigh. I've been asked about the mop, but I'm still undecided - mostly because of the concern you raised about having time to edit. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! have fun with the tools! --Chris 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. It is obvious that you will put the tools to great use, and we are all expectant of your excellent cotnributions as a crat. Regards, and good luck! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!! I see you wasted no time on using your new tools. -Rjd0060 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I never had a doubt that your nomination would be successful. You do so much good for this project. Royalbroil 06:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename Czar

Wow! You went through the rename backlog like a hot knife through butter! Way to go! -- Cecropia (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the number of admins we have has gone down from 1419 to 1418 during his tenure as a bureaucrat. I know of no other bureaucrat who has a negative record in this area. Please do better in the future WJB. ;) NoSeptember 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's no surprise that you've fixed it already. :) NoSeptember 13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		(Really the working persons barnstar) For serving Wikipedia as bureaucrat.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And you've promoted a sysop and removed one bot! I hope you're enjoying the job so far. Great work!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add it to your collection. :-) You've earned it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding personal information of the Meiers

Alright, regarding that, I do not mind if we agree that the information will not be reintroduced.

I read the policy (after the post) and there are restrictions on "public figures" (I.E. one may not post an address while solely relying on public information provided by states, etc.) WhisperToMe 15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I referred to the "Well known public figures" which describes how to handle home addresses of "public figures" - There is such a thing as an involuntary public figure; I have seen second-hand sources (news reports) refer to the street name, but I have not seen any include the house number, so I do not mind if my post is deleted. WhisperToMe 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that the Drews are collectively notable with Meier in that they were the perpetrators of the incident (not people pheripherally involved), AFAIK people accused of crimes (the Drews have not been charged; it seems like they have a similar spotlight to a person charged of a crime/criminal, though) are considered to be "public figure"s and there are some conditions they cannot claim even if they are cleared of crimes. Also, the Drews and the incident are now known throughout the United States (I do not know if the case is that well known outside of the US).

What I decided to do was start a talk page section on BLP: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Voluntary_public_figures_vs._involuntary_public_figures - It may be a good idea for WP to place MORE restrictions on involuntary public figures than voluntary public figures, as the current policy does not distinguish between the two. WhisperToMe 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Quorum and the RFA

I'm a strong adherent to the idea of many of our mistakes have occurred because we never address the issue of quorum. I can branch out with this criticism a number of ways, but I think one place it is clear is with RFA. Having just been too involved in one of the great knock down shouting matches in recent memory ("Durovagate"), and consequently not following your RfB properly, I'll first congratulate you and then explain what I meant.

The "RFA is broken" phenomenon occurs because 1) "bad" people get promoted, 2) "good" people don't. These are separate matters, as some folks complain because of disappointment, others outrage. No one can fix that, because we will never agree on the bad or the good. However, what I find more common, as an old timer now in the midst of a giant project, is that more and more people are blundering about with their bits. They may be nice, not nice, well intentioned, or shadowy agents of dark powers, for all I know, but when I look at their RFA's, I see that, aside from being recent, they seem to always be sparsely voted.

Badlydrawnjeff and I probably never agreed on a single article. He wanted all of them revived and preserved, and I think all but the most highly polished are wastes of space. I'm an extreme elitist in that regard, and he was an extreme inclusionist. Because he was passionate, he argued his position, generally well, always consistently. He also had nearly a year, it seemed, of demonstrating calm and, when not calm, of staying within the lines proscribed by policy. He always favored more discussion, less bullying. I was surprised at how well he managed to be as passionate as possible and yet stay clear of policy violations. I voted against his first RFA and voted for his second. If you know my deletionism and his inclusionism, you'll see that that really is saying something about how well he impressed me with his character and his restraint. I knew that I was voting for an admin who would oppose me at nearly every turn but agree with me that we work by open rules. However, he had had a year of vociferous argument.

His RFA #2 generated hundreds and hundreds of votes, incredible amounts of pettiness, and lots of threatening.

On the other hand, I can look over at some recent RFA's that have passed, and they have a total of 34 votes. Such was user:ChrisTheDude. I have no opinion of said dude. He may be the finest admin since Wile E. Heresiarch or Secret London, or he may be as troublesome as Everyking. I don't know. Apparently, no one else did, either. I know he's newish. Because he is new, and because he has done nothing substantial, he has had few views. In other words, he has not, almost de facto, demonstrated sufficient experience with the project due to having done so little to draw comment. RFA as it is now, with no quorum, promotes milquetoasts and the newbie over the passionate, involved, and experienced.

We've all heard the "if I had to go through RFA today, I'd fail" sentiment (or "if you had to go through..."). In fact, ArbCom tacitly acknowledged that when it moved the goalposts on Carnildo. If being active, engaged, and experienced means giant vote totals and being passive, particular, and new means low ones, then the only way to be sure that the same standard is at work throughout is to have some form of quorum.

I feel very uncertain about any admin with 40 votes, total. Such a person may turn out to be fine, but I rather suspect it's easier for the shadowy BADPEOPLE that Durova and others worry about to get themselves to such a position by bland gnomery with low vote counts than it would be if we had quorum.

When I passed, it was 35:1:2, and it was one of the busiest RFA's in ages. If we had a requisite 100 total votes (neutral is not a vote), we might at least be sure to filter out the new users and those who are doing so little as to have gotten no notice.

Anyway, such are my Thoughts upon this matter. Geogre 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bots

I'm wishing to write a bot that can also be an adminbot, but reverting mass page-move vandalism, similar to RedirectCleanupBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights). I had a look at the code for RedirectCleanupBot and saw it was written in Perl (.pl extension), would it be possible to do this for a PageMoveCleanupBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (currently non-existent, but it could be useful, and would be another adminbot which would be useful.

I'm fairly new to this area of Wikipedia, so any advice that can be given is appreciated. If you could help me that would be much appreciated.

Hopefully, if such a bot can be created, let's hope it isn't as troubled as BetacommandBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights).

Cheers, --Solumeiras ^talk 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably the first thing to note is that the community is extremely weary of admin Bots - it seems to be required that someone who ran an admin Bot would also be an admin themselves. Also most of the code for RedirectCleanupBot was written by Eagle 101 not myself. I presume the reason you want a page move Bot to be an admin Bot is that it would block the page move vandal? Unfortunately blocking Bots are some of the most controversial. A page move vandal blocking script was run for some time by Curps (but on his main admin account, not a designated Bot account) which blocked users after a suspect string of page moves and reported it to WP:AN/I for human review. Curps has since left the project but I understand that another admin now runs a blocking script for page moves from their main account, though I shan't name them. So this is being done, albeit not with the same openess that a designated Bot account would provide.

In short, although I think such a Bot is a great idea, I have a lot of doubts that it could pass WP:RFA and if it did I suspect it would need for the operator to be an admin themselves with a pretty perfect reputation. WjBscribe 18:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your promotion, Will!  :) Aleta 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! That rename log is huge already! Congrats on the new tools, and glad you got 'em! :) Jmlk17 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my congrats to one of the existing threads. So glad to have you as a 'crat. I really believe you'll be less of a "number cruncher" and I think that's important. Regards, Mr Which^??? 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the !vote. Congrats!! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiHelp

Want to join? Best, — Rudget _{contributions} 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your cool head on Hesperian's block. Thanks. Twenty Years 14:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Here's my reasoning for blocking Jeffpw:

1. He was edit warring
2. As an editor who has been here a while, he knew full well that edit warring is unacceptable even if he or she did not violate 3RR
3. 3RR does not empower an editor to revert 3 times
4. He did not discuss with the "opposing editor" before his 2 of 3 reverts on that page.
5. I felt that by continuing his reverts he was putting them both in the spot to be blocked, in a sense baiting the "opposing editor", although it most likely wasn't done intentionally.
6. After assessing the situation, as well as a promise not to edit war, I unblocked Jeffpw.

_{On a side note: in the future, refer to me as "he"/"his" not "her", which you seem to have written on WP:AN/3RR.} regards,  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you really want to see heavy handedness check User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's issuing of blocks.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  15:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry are you really saying "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?" WjBscribe 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did discuss, and asked him to stop on the talk page, as well as warning him on his own page. This was before my 3rd and final revert, after which I brought it to the 3rr page, thinking I had followed policy. You chose to simply block me without discussion. You also didn't bother removing the autoblock after you finally removed my regular block, resulting in nearly another hour of blockage. Your actions have left a bad taste in my mouth regarding editing here, and I would hope you act with more caution before blocking other users in a similar fashion. Jeffpw 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to WJBscribe No I did not say or intend to say "Its OK for me to issue bad blocks because someone else is worse?", I was giving an example of heavy handedness. My actions were not heavy handed, although I agree I could have simply spoken to Jeffpw on the issue, however, it is my position that he had been edit warring on the page even if he full well knew that he shouldn't have. (I apologize for forgetting about the autoblock).

Reply to Jeffpw You were not following policy when you were edit warring with then other editor.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has only been an admin for a couple of weeks. If his blocking is out of step with others he should receive guidance from more experienced admins. But I do not think heavy handedness is relative such that as long as someone is being more heavy handed than you you're doing fine. I would hope that the consequences for your block - a lot of angst and nothing positive achieved - would be enough for you too see that blocking was a bad decision. WjBscribe 15:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nat, obviously, I didn't know that I had done anything wrong. A simple explanation of the fine points of 3rr would have gone a long way. A simple check of my block log would have shown you I had never been in this position before. You didn't assume any good faith in this situation, and, as I see it, abused your authority. I am through discussing this with you, and as far as I am concerned, this incident is closed. That said, I am currently reviewing my participation on Wikipedia in reaction to your heavy autocratic actions. Jeffpw 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say a few things:

1. I did not abuse my authority
2. As a person and an editor that has clearly been here longer then I have (according to wannabe kate: Jeffpw registered in May 2005, and actively editing since October 2006), Jeffpw should have known the fine details of certain policies such as edit warring.
3. I object to the usage of the term "autocratic" as my actions were clearly not one of an autocrat.
4. If you feel the need to review your participation on Wikipedia, so be it.
5. I have checked you block log before I issued the block, and that is why I issued only a 24 hour block, which I believe is standard for edit warring.
6. As shown here: [1] you did not clearly address the issues that the other editor had brought up. Here's what he had to say in an email to me:

“ I'm just curious - why was I blocked for 3RR, when user Jeffpw reverted my edits three times, without even familiarizing himself with the talk page? I'm not sure if you read the discussion on Jón Þór Birgisson. No one has addressed the fact that their edits violated MOS#Identity, they simply told me to "get over it." I really feel as if I am being ignored and treated unfairly.

Jón Þór Birgisson refers to himself as "gay". MOS#Identity compels us to respect a person's choice of terminology. Yet Jeffpw and other editors reverted my edits in rapid fashion (more than 3 times), adding "openly", despite the fact that adding this word violates MOS#Identity. When I asked these users to address my point that "openly" is a violation of MOS#Identity, I was simply ignored. I feel like no one is addressing my point. It's clear from the edit history that neither Jeffpw nor the other editors even checked the cited source.

Furthermore, please note that I was *not removing sourced material*. I have no idea where Jeffpw is getting this from. I believe that he is completely misunderstanding where I am coming from. Probably because he didn't even bother to read the talk page. If he had, he'd understand what I've been trying to explain for weeks. Also, I have been protecting this article from vandalism for six months now. I can't believe what Jeffpw is trying to accuse me of *without even understanding what I'm trying to say*. --User:X3210

”

Now clearly I've looked at the talk page, and not once before that threat of a block did I see you discussing with him on his concerns. Now that gives me the impression that you did not want to discuss this with him, and that this edit war was going to continue. Your behaviour is not what someone would expect from someone who has edited here for a longtime. I think that the block was necessary and justified, as a method of prevention as well as a wakeup call that you cannot just revert someone or get into an edit war with someone without any attachment of responsibility with your actions. Although you did not break the letter of 3RR, you clearly broke the spirit of the rule. I apologize if this has upset you, but I was clearly justified to block you for something that a long time contributor, such as yourself, should understand and comprehend is inappropriate.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian

Thanks for that. Hesperian 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sick of them yet?

Sick of renames yet? ;) You will be in a week or two.. Secretlondon 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm good at the moment. Enjoy the break while they're a novelty for me... :D WjBscribe 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

How could I have not seen your RfB? It would've been a Super Strong Support Good luck with the "Mop+" responsibility. Mbisanz 05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you're a crat. Congratulations! I knew you'd be one soon, but not under my radar :). Also, I thought you'd run for ArbCom, you would've been a good contender. Did you at least think about it? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

RFCU oddity

Why are these cases listed here? See Category:Checkuser_requests_to_be_listed. I see no pattern some are not on the RFCU page, one is archived, and one is on the RFCU page. I can't figure this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All new RFCU requests contain the template {{checkuser requests to be listed}} which includes them in that category. Someone needs to manually remove that category from case pages once they are listed on the main page. WjBscribe 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AH, I see, it's at the top, I was looking at the bottom of the case page. I've also noticed a lot of users don't transclude their request onto the RFCU page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China

Hi WJBscribe, Is it possible to extend the acceptance period for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China by 48 hours as there is only 1 of 8 that has not responded to the RfM yet, and I believe that it might of slipped his mind. Regards,  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Jiang has been editing since the request was filed and was notified. If he were now to say he'd like to participate in mediation it would I accept be ridiculously bureaucratic to refuse to reopen the case. Our experience is that those who don't sign up within the week aren't really interested in mediation, but if he drops me a note saying he just forgot and wants to be involved I'll reopen the case and it can go ahead. WjBscribe 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Daniel.

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China#Questions. Thank you! — Sebastian 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm recused in this case (as noted on the page), so WJBscribe (talk) is acting Chair :) [I'll copy-paste this message to his talk page for you]. Cheers, Daniel 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	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 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; advice?

WJB, thank you very much for defending me here. I feel... distraught about the whole thing and it's good to know people are looking out for me when I'm too busy to promptly do so myself. I don't know how to respond other than to lay out my thought process as best I can remember it so many months ago. It's not really evidence, and I know from my many years of mock trial that someone's statements in their own interest are rarely persuasive, but I can't think of what else to do. Any thoughts?--chaser - t 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hi WJBs. You comments where highly appreciated. I just want you to read my addendum where i explicitly explained my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Send me an e-mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your mature and balanced administration. It's a difficult tightrope to walk but you negotiated it with aplomb. Alice.S 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:74.200.75.5

Hi I wonder why you unblocked the user, comments that he said was obvious trolling like this I agree a two week block was too harsh, but we can't endorse that type of behavior in the elections. This is a Secret ^account 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's trolling actually. A lot of good users seem to be concerned that power is being concentrated in the hands of a few people and that some candidates are a bit too "Wiki-establishment" for their tastes. That itsn't an invalid view to express, and I think the voting requirements should have been clearly explained to the IP before they were blocked. If they resumed now they have had it explained to them why they are not allowed to vote, a block might be appropriate. WjBscribe 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, WJB. Which is why I left notes on a few users' pages, as the incivility and premature block were both unnecessary, per the blocking policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Username

You freaking work fast, WJ. It's quite amazing. You're like a bot, but way cooler. the_undertow ^talk 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Just you wait til I have a go at the clerks for not getting to the requests quickly enough ;-). I mean your request was there literally 4 minutes unattended... WjBscribe 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

HIYO-Blue Laser

I did make a comment on Deskanna's talk page and she never responded. I am sure of this name. HIYO (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)