User talk:WJBscribe: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:40, 3 July 2008

04:39, Tuesday 21 May 2024

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

"Xeno"

Re [1], what if I were able to obtain the blessing of the no.wiki user? I'm no longer actually planning to use the "Xeno" account, but I'd to reserve it as a doppleganger type thing and create a redirect. No rush on the response, and I hope you are enjoying/enjoyed your holiday. –xenocidic (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a user on the Polish Wikipedia with that name and a handful of edits. It'd really need both to agree. Why don't you just go ahead and create the redirects you want? If the nowiki editor objects to the redirects in the future, you can discuss it then but in the meantime no one will be able to edit with that name anyway. WjBscribe 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan - cheers. I'll see what the Norwegian/Polish editors think when I get a chance as well. –xenocidic (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name infiltration

Hey Will, hope all is good. Can you check this question for me. Is there a reasonable policy which deals with clear cross-over violation of the username and the BLP policies? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All is well thank you. No actual policy so it falls to bureaucrat discretion. These are fairly routinely renamed, especially where they have no significant edits. I usually rename to a generic name e.g. Renamed user XX when XX is a number that hasn't been used yet (I think we're up to the mid twenties on such names at present). Usually requests follow OTRS complaints or involve the use of an admin's name to harass them, and requests are usually made to individual bureaucrats directly rather than at [[WP:CHU]. Feel free to rename it yourself or I will do it if you don't. WjBscribe 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought I'd seen that before now. I'll go ahead and carry out the request. Thanks for your advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear Will,

Thank you so very much for your kind words of comfort on my talk page. At a time such as this, words and deeds make such an enormous difference between suffering and consolation. You have consoled me.

Isaac is with me, here at home, until the funeral on Thursday. It gives me great comfort that we can remain together until our final parting. I am sure the funeral will be a beautiful event; Isaac was so loved that there are people and speeches from all over the world coming in.

I had two very important aspects to my life: my beautiful man, and my career. Now my career will have to sustain me. As such, I plan on returning to work on Monday, and hope to resume editing shortly thereafter. Until then, please know that your kindness to me is appreciated, and will never be forgotten.

With love, Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Assuming I'm not wrong, Lifebaka's RFA is overdue. Could you close it as successful? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduled to end 18:41, July 1, 2008 (UTC) ( ? ) –xenocidic (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god. I thought it was July! Lulz! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day WJB...

Hope you're good - our southern winter is kicking in down here, and I see from around the place that maybe a few wiki types have p'raps let the sun get to their heads! ;-) - I'm swinging by here because I've been following the discussions about 'bad blocks' at the noticeboard, and wanted to see what you thought about what I see as the fundamental question - Geogre put it better than me;

No bans by any administrator without 1) community consensus (that's community) or 2) RfAr that concludes with one.

I'm inclined to agree, and I would presume you would too? I've noticed we tie ourselves in wiki knots trying to deal with undoing actions, but I think that this has got to be baseline position, no? With that in mind, the obvious follow ups are 'is PD banned?' and 'is there consensus for it?' - I'd love to hear your thoughts.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD is not banned to my knowledge. He has however as I understand it breached the terms that lead to the lifting of his original indefblock. He is therefore I think correctly once again indefblocked unless and until he negotiates terms of a new unblock - I mimimum requirement for which I believe is a renewed commitment not to renew the problematic conduct with regards FT2. That said, given my prior involvement in the matter, I leave such decisions to others but thought I would express a view in the WP:ANI thread as there seemed to be some confusion - in particular I realise that Geogre was unaware of the original account blocked last year (and therefore saw a more sudden indefblock than had actually occured). WjBscribe 23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you weren't part of the discussions about unblocking Db to come back as PD and H - but I'm not sure... certainly the terms of this 'indef. block parole' seem a little ill defined. I think Ryan is acting in good faith believing that agreed upon terms have been breached - but the dispute resolution system is kinda hanging him out to dry by making it very hard for him to show that he's correct (all just my take on stuff...). The situation seems further complicated to me by use of the word 'harassment' which I personally wouldn't agree with, and we end up in a(nother) wiki mess. I don't know if Alex B does IRC - but I reckon if you could catch up with Lar in real time somewhere, you guys would figure this out pretty quick. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)and I'll disengage further now, unless I really feel I could clearly help the situation resolve...[reply]

Mop

Thanks! Time to get a-scrubbin', I guess. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note

If you look on User talk:Lar, it would appear that Ryan is saying that User:Hinnibilis is PD's sock. If that is the case, then all the harassment on FT2's talkpage last night would be a violation of his parole. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check User:Hinnibilis, especially [2] - the account is openly acknowledged to be a second account of PD... WjBscribe 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was just told that. I don't know how I missed that. Sorry for the intrusion. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gwen Gale

I did not know you archived the RFA of User:Lifebaka as I was writing my rebuttal to Gwen Gale's personal attack against me. She removed my dismay toward her, but left her comment untouchable. It is not fair, so I revert it. You're closing admin, so if you think you would remove my last-minute comment, I would strongly request her comment should be removed as well. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you had not realised the discussion was closed, but it was. It is important that these discussions have a firm ending as otherwise discussion would continue with everyone wanting to have "the last word". It was correct that your comment after the close was removed. I don't think there is any need to remove Gwen's comment and I don't think it amounts to a "personal attack". WjBscribe 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she did not remove my rebuttal against her personal attack against me (I'm very offended by her childish comment), I have some doubt that you would remove mine only. You also counted my vote even thought the scheduled time was past (I did not also realized until Gwen Gale said that). It is not also fair to have such the insulting and retaliating comment alone. I kindly request you again to remove her last two comment.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scheduled end time is just the earliest time an RfA may be closed - hence why your opposition was still counted despite being made after this time. However, comments made after a bureaucrat has ultimately closed the RfA are reverted. Gwen Gale's comment suggests your opposition was motivated by a recent dispute but does not in my judgment amount to a personal attack. I suggest you attempt to resolve any remaining issues with her on her talkpage. WjBscribe 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, she clearly followed me and left such the degrading comment to revenge after I strongly objected to her closing AFD without giving good rationale. Due to the remaining comments of her, anyone who read the page in future may think that I'm practicing revenge for my own. She is not in the position to mock me as doing her revenge. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the RfA is readily accessible. As WJBscribe says, please resolve this conflict with her. Rudget (logs) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask Gwen politely to remove the comment as it is obviously a source of stress for you? I would have no objection to her doing so. WjBscribe 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but she's clearly ignoring my polite request to delete her comment that I consider as personal attacks. The request is about her improper way of revenge. I also consider it as un-administrative action. She even attempts to deal with me[3] (well, I consider it sort of threat) for removing my opposing vote. My vote there within the Wikirule is none of her business and beyond her right. None is given to do such practice humiliating people. Question, can editors leave a comment or open a discussion at talk pages of any closed RFA if there is in need for doing so? --Caspian blue (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Email en route. Risker (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My account(s) on en.wp

I've explained alaready several times what has happened to me. There was no magic behind it. I have first always used the user name "verdy_p" (lowercase p) on all wikis. This is true for the FR.WP that is my home wiki.

But in 2004, when I first created an account "verdy_p" on EN.WP, I could no longer access to it: the database had experienced some technical issue, and rolled back, and had aparently lost my password. I could not gain access to it so only a dozen of edits were left on "verdy_p" left there. At that time I had requested to EN.WP admins/bureaucrats help to recover my account.

No solution was found (renaming accounts was not possible at that time), so I the only solution I had was to create another account "Verdy_P" (with capital P). That's the only Wiki where I had this alternate user name; beside this this did not cause me more problems than others that already have to use distinct usernames on several projects, just because their usernames are colliding (this is frequent for users that have two-letter usernames, or that use their firstname).

Now enters SUL. I'm invited to test it, so I launch the merge from FR.WP. IT effectively detects all my accounts on all projects, but detects a conflict for "verdy_p" on EN.WP, because that account does not match the password.

Then I am instructed to terminate the merging. So I have asked to the bureaucrats here TWO things.

to rename "verdy_p" (the dead account) into "verdy_p2004"
to rename "Verdy_P" (my current account here) into "verdy_p" (to match my username used everywhere else and notably in my home wiki for SUL)

The admin here replied that this was "done". It was NOT! In fact only thr first step was taken. Then the next time I have logged on French Wikipedia, SUL was activated, no longer saw any conflict and considered that my account was finally completely "merged". It saw no problem in recreating a new account "verdy_p" here automatically (I was given no special notice of this automatic creation that occured just when I visited EN.WP).

Here is where I am: I have now THREE accounts here:

verdy_p2004 (the first old account "verdy_p" that was renamed by a bureaucrat here, used only for a dozen of edits on a single article on the same day in 2004)
Verdy_P (the account that I have used here since years)
verdy_p (an account "magically" created by SUL and that I really don't want)

The problem is effectively SUL: by automatically creating accounts without any confirmation, it is hiding other existing accounts that could not be merged. This may happen at ay time to anyone whose ccount merging is currently blocked: it would suffice that the other blocking account be renamed or deleted, to effectively have SUL suddenly recreating an undesired account masking the existing one.

The bad effect of SUL is that nothing will indicate you that it will create an account automatically, you can only see that by the color of the user name at top of page, because automatically created accounts won't have any discussion page or user page. There's no confirmation before this occurs, and no way to specify to SUL another existing account.

Requesting the renaming of usernames is certainly not the good solution, even for the long term. There will always be conflicts between the various wikis for newcoming users connecting to one or another. I approve the single signon initiative, but this should just consist in providing the correct username and password pair on one wiki to be also authenticated on the other wikis that have been validated in SUL.

Now, here is what I want, to unblock the situation:

Don't care about "verdy_p2004" here (its permanently damaged, unrecoverable and unused since 2004; anyway it had been validated: the email was lost as well as the password due to database failure and incorrect recovery)
Make sure that my global SUL account "verdy_p" (lowercase p) is removed. (Don't touch to any other wikis than EN.WP, such as FR.WP that is my home wiki). I have already snet the request to EN.WP stewards but it was not done.
Rename the current "verdy_p" account to "verdy_p2008" (this is the account I never wanted: it is validated but i don't want it), or "merge" it into "Verdy_P" (capital P).
Rename my current "Verdy_P" account to "verdy_p" (to match the other usernames used everywhere else).
When this is done, I'll be able to merge again the accounts under SUL.

verdy_p (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle the local elements of your request but it will require the deletion of your global account first. But there is no such thing as an en.wp steward- all stewards are on meta and act across all projects. A request for the deletion of a global account can be made at m:Steward requests/SUL requests. The stewards may require you to take a few simple steps before they action the request to make sure you don't lose any accounts in the process so you should watch the page for any comments they may make. WjBscribe 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already made a request on meta: m:Steward requests/SUL requests#User:Verdy p. You need to reply to .snoopy. 's question. WjBscribe 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the deletion of your global account, I have renamed Verdy p to Verdy p2008 and Verdy P to Verdy p. Hopefully that resolves the problems with your SUL implementation as best I can. WjBscribe 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celona RFC and mediation

Geez, I knew that, too. I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me when I was putting that together. Apologies, and thanks for rectifying my error. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Mediation Question

Hi, I am (unless someone else does it before me) likely to propose a dispute to be resolved by the Mediation Committee that you chair, but when I came to file the request, I noticed that it asks to "Provide details about the involved parties." However, in this particular dispute, there may be as many as 20 (or more possibly) users involved, so do all these names need to be given, or is it allowed to just say "too many to mention"? Deamon138 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that you list all the parties who you think would need to participate in the mediation, as each will need to agree individually. If the person who comes to mediate the dispute feels the numbers are too large, they may request that groups of editors with similar views nominate a "spokesperson" to participate on their behalf, but initial agreement to the mediation from everyone is still needed. WjBscribe 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone that I list on there I would have to have asked them beforehand if they want to participate? Deamon138 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. People would also be free to list themselves or others that they thought needed to participate. WjBscribe 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the help, I'll try and file this to the best of my ability! Deamon138 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Account

I don't want to rename. I want both, to be honest. Beam 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 :::Yes. People would also be free to list themselves or others that they thought needed to participate. <font face="Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</font> 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 ::::Okay thanks for the help, I'll try and file this to the best of my ability! [[User:Deamon138|Deamon138]] ([[User talk:Deamon138|talk]]) 23:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
+== Renaming Account ==
+I don't want to rename. I want both, to be honest. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)