This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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? iMatthew200815:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
":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
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)
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. WjBscribe09:12, 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)
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. WjBscribe09:01, 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)
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)
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. WjBscribe21:14, 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. GRBerry20:34, 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). WjBscribe21:10, 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)
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... WjBscribe22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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? MBisanztalk23:13, 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. WjBscribe23:24, 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. MBisanztalk23:37, 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. WjBscribe23:40, 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. MBisanztalk23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
=)
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 =) SoapTalk/Contributions00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. WjBscribe23:34, 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 Postlethwaite23:45, 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)
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)
Seems unlikely either of those will not to run again (especially the first one). I have removed the flags given Tim's assent. WjBscribe13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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... WjBscribe12:13, 11 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. WjBscribe09:01, 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. WjBscribe11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 מישהוOd Mishehu06:48, 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, Sarah11:56, 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, Sarah11:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Sarah. Od Mishehu, I might have tempted to accept the explanation but for two factors in particular:
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.
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. WjBscribe14:58, 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)
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... WjBscribe17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)r
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.
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. WjBscribe16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
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... WjBscribe19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
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'sFavoriteCookie02:29, 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. WjBscribe11:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like we may have to go for an indefinite: Two more, s/he just created:
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. WjBscribe14:36, 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. WjBscribe01:14, 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. WjBscribe14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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'sFavoriteCookie18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
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. WjBscribe01:21, 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)
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 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. WjBscribe02:53, 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. MBisanztalk03:34, 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)
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 Scott04:43, 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? WjBscribe04:46, 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 Scott04:56, 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. WjBscribe05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
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. WjBscribe21:05, 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)
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. WjBscribe23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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?--Sallicio01:55, 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. WjBscribe03:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 Shankbone13:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
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! AletaSing16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy Easter
Don't let those cute smiles fool you, these bunnies are dangerous.
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? AletaSing02:45, 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. WjBscribe03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (my former username) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute [...] This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.
”
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.
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)
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... WjBscribe19:41, 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. WjBscribe22:10, 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... WjBscribe22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. MBisanztalk05:45, 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. WjBscribe23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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! Benjiboi07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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, Anthøny14:57, 30 March 2008 (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)
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. WjBscribe17:08, 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. WjBscribe17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
