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.
I had hoped you would support, but I respect your decision. I wish someone had asked me a question about my views on consensus so that I could have addressed the issue, although I don't know if that would have made a difference. Everyking (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I know it's due to close shortly, but I will reconsider if you think I'm mistaken about your views on consensus. They have always seemed to me pretty clear to me- here is a recent example and an older one about an AfD close of mine. There doesn't seem to be much ambiguity, which is why I didn't ask about it, but can give it further thought if I've misunderstood. WJBscribe(talk)18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you're correct about my views on the matter. Consensus is about broad agreement, and I don't believe a person can claim a consensus based on minority or slight majority support when that person has disregarded the views of certain people in the room. I don't see why it makes such a difference to you, since I wouldn't be closing anything, but it's your decision. Everyking (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't fully assimilated that intention - I see it now expressed in your response to questions about inclusionism. In that case, I will bite the bullet and support. WJBscribe(talk)19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to give you a heads-up that this AfD was incorrectly entered on the AfD log page. I've fixed it so it shows up correctly. Cheers! TN‑X-Man16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not at present willing to rename users with significant contributions without their permission given (a) the lack of a local consensus that we should do so, and (b) the absence of confirmation that is compatible with the GFDL. As to (b), my personal opinion is that it is fine (see [1] for some detailed thoughts) but I am concerned that there seems to be an unwillingness to seek a legal opinion on the question. WJBscribe(talk)23:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
yea, recently Nichalp and I turned down an SUL usurp for a guy who was a crat on nl.wiki for a similar reason, the SUL policy is not yet clear enough, but with the next wave, it may be when home wiki owners have clearer right to the name on other wikis. In that case the en wiki user had like 250 or so edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
re: Adminship
I want to thank you very much for considering me. I've given it some thought and I'm not sure at this point that I want to pursue being an administrator. I've had experiences in the last month with an old sockpuppet issue that gave me pause to consider pursuing this. However, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be motivated by a desire to just deal with this myself instead of going through the myriad of sock puppet reports, checkuser requests and finally, oversight to remove my personal details which were posted by the sock. (See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning). I'm quite involved in a couple projects related to WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and would like to concentrate my efforts on those. I hope that should I change my focus in the future, the offer would be good. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi WJB. I got your email. I was wondering if it was still possible for me to get a username change becuase IIRC there was a rule that disallowed namechanges for people with too many edits-I have 50k+. I was just going to change my username to YellowMonkey, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it'll be more convenient for other users to spell. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Blnguyen, I'm not sure if WJB is around now, but the limit for renames has jumped to over 1m. Tim Starling changed the way renames were processed, so there's no lag now which was the major cause for concern. IIRC, there could be issues with renames timing out, and not all edits passing over to the new account, but this can easily be sorted by a developer if it happens. 50k certainly shouldn't be a problem. Hope this helps! RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Your edit count shouldn't be a problem, though it may take a day or two for all your edits to transfer to the new name. I strongly advise recreating Blnguyen once your done and it wouldn't hurt to unify both accounts to guard against impersonation. WJBscribe(talk)04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. This is not an article, and as such should be nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL clearly applies to articles, not projectspace. WJBscribe (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
First, it did not meet the criteria of speedy keep , second, notmemorial applies to wikipedia pages, not just articles:
Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site
Further information: Wikipedia:User page
Note: WP:Obituary redirects here. For obituaries of Wikipedians, see WP:Deceased Wikipedians.
Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not: [...]
Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives.
Notice that is says wikipedia pages are not, not wikipedia articles are not.
The two memorials that are on wiki are not in keeping with policy. If you wanna keep 'em, that's fine, but the policy would need to be changed to reflect that. Currently policy does not support it.
Be aware, I'm not sniping, being sarcastic, attacking. I have brains enough to know if I do that, I get blocked.
Further, if I'm that stupid to try that, I would deserve such a block.
I'm disagreeing with you, and expressing suprise that you would so quickly close a nom, when it's usually frowned on.
KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Questions at RfA
Is it appropriate to start regularly asking candidates if they are over 18? Another user is doing this, and I'm concerned that editors are being pressured to provide private information. I bring this to you because we once had a discussion about my asking policy questions at RfA — resulting in my discontinuation of the practice — so I know you are concerned about the process. Any input at the RfA talk page is appreciated. Mr. IP《Defender of Open Editing》00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My opinion remains the same as when you consulted me on Davin7 → Davin. Seeing as you went ahead and renamed that user despite my advice, I'm not sure what it is about this request this request that might make you treat it differently. WJBscribe(talk)16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I emailed Mike Godwin and got no reply. There is the GFDL issue but then there's also SUL, the whole purpose of which is to allow people to have the same account on across all wikis. In the meantime we have these sorts of problems until WMF and SUL comes out with a clearer policy for this conflicted situation they've left crats to sort out on their own. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
SUL cannot trump GFDL. We survived a long time without it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to hold off on fulfilling some SUL requests until we have confirmation that these renames are actions that are compliant with the license that was chosen for this project. WJBscribe(talk)17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ya, but this should have been easily forseen by WMF ahead of time and sorted out already. It's also self-defeating to have SUL and then stop people from fully using it. I'm not happy that WMF hasn't already solved this. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm also confused. I've declined the request, but find myself emailing the existing Ferrer to ask if he'd agree to a name change. If he does, I can rename him to his choice, move Ferrer-ru in to Ferrer and the GFDL should be OK with it. No? If not, then why don't we have a problem with agreeing standard requests at WP:CHU? Surely the same problems apply. And if the GFDL is OK with it, then why would the GFDL not be OK with us renaming the existing account holder without permission?
If someone agrees to be renamed, all is well - it's renaming people without their knowledge that is the snag here. I didn't realise the account had email enabled. If they agree to be renamed, great. WJBscribe(talk)16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's go slow here, because I find this hard. I'll present two scenarios:
OK, so if he agrees to be renamed, say User:New Ferrer, the software will automatically reallocate all his old edits to this username, preserving GFDL. I then rename the other account User:Ferrer and everyone is happy.
If he doesn't reply and in a week's time I therefore decided to rename his account to, say User:New Ferrer, the software will automatically reallocate all his old edits to this username, preserving GFDL. I can then rename the other account User:Ferrer. Why wouldn't everyone still be happy?
OK, this is simplifying things a little but lets see if this makes sense: when someone edits Wikipedia, a contract is created governed by the rules of the GFDL. The editor agrees to freely license his contributions in exchange for "attribution". The form attribution takes is that his username must be credited for significant contributions he has made. If someone wants to be renamed, they are asking for a change in the attribution of their edits. So we continue to attribute them according to their wishes. Now, if we rename them without them agreeing to this, we are potentially no longer fulfilling our side of the bargain. If their edits aren't significant then it doesn't matter because there is nothing for which they could insist on being credited, but if they have significantly edited articles we risk rendering those articles into a copyright violation - which we would then be required to delete (or at least to delete all versions from their edit onwards). WJBscribe(talk)16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue would be if he returns and tries to log into his account and can't since it has been renamed. Also, technically he made the edits to be attributed to "Ferrer" as the holder of the copyright (GFDL) of the edits, so us re-attributing them to "Ferrer New" without his permission could get a copyright issue. But since I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what that issue is, if it even exists. MBisanztalk16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's get specific, re "If their edits aren't significant..."...what about user with 1 edit over 5 years ago, 5 edits 4 years ago, 20 edits 3 years ago, etc. Where is the line drawn? From this and other discussions here on en wiki and meta, it's obvious there are a slew of opinions on this. We need WMF to make firm ruling on this, queries to which they've not been responsive. They should have foreseen this when they started SUL. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Time and number of edits aren't the factor. The issue is whether any given edit, however long ago it was made, is in itself significant - or whether a series of edits added a significant amount to the article. Think of it in these terms: for any article the person has edited, could they be said to be one of the top 12 5 contributors to that article? WJBscribe(talk)18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ideally this is really something that ought to be done Wikimedia-wide. As it is, some projects will rename users to unify SUL even if there are GFDL edits (I think so) and others will generally refuse to do renames in all but the most clear circumstances. I see the discussion at Meta has pretty much died down, but is there any chance of say getting a project-wide decision from Cary or Mike, or even Brion if the decision is that there will eventually be system-forced renames? Right now we're wandering in the dark. Even if we do find a way forward, there is noting to stop other projects from finding a different way. MBisanztalk18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Cary and I have spoken about this, and he opposed the meta SUL policy because these things haven't been cleared up. I expect we'll get a statement in due course, especially if we refuse to act without one. My advice to bureaucrats considering renaming someone with edits is: "If in doubt, don't do it". That's also in keeping with this wiki's policy as there has been no local consensus to rename account's with non-trivial edits. WJBscribe(talk)18:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As Will describes it, we have no real problem with renames. Figuring whether edits are GFDL significant or not is relatively easy. The flexibility to be able to draw from the top 5 edits is certainly an added bonus. cauldron18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any chance of getting the Stewards to agree to such a "stand-still"? I suspect the stewards refusing to do renames on wikis without crats would be far more effective at creating noise than just enwp. MBisanztalk18:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: "Think of it in these terms: for any article the person has edited, could they be said to be one of the top 5 contributors to that article?"...based on my experience with this, being in the top 5 editors for an article for the accounts people generally ask to be usurped would usually not be problem. Edits of most users, even active ones, are very spread out. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually we've had a few cases where accounts with few edits have however created an article, to which little content has been added afterwards. Those are definitely a problem. I personally might still hold off on those not in the top 5 contributors to any articles, but you're definitely on firmer ground if you decide to rename those. WJBscribe(talk)18:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi; thanks for changing my nick to the new one I'd chosen so promptly! However.. I've had a change of heart and prefer the old one :S (which must be annoying..) should I go through the name change procedure again, wait a while, fill out some other form or just learn to live with the new username? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Name Change
I've placed a request for my username to be merged with my SUL username Dark Mage which the link was removed you can see the request here and also would it be possible if you could un-protect my userpage and talkpage so I could edit it, thanks. Terra (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed that you were involved in an admin recall for the user "Ryulong". He has since had a request for another and mine new one is the third. I am initiating a new one because of WP:BITE during a problem with WP:NAC as can be viewed here and here. The entire issue can be viewed here. If you would like to be involved in this discussion, it can be viewed on Ryulong's talk page User talk:Ryulong. If not, thank you anyway. Regards Fr33kmantalkAPW23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I really hate to say this now, but my conscience requires me too. I was about to change from support to neutral (and perhaps even oppose, but not definitively). Regardless of my own hesitation in a +sysyop, and nothing against an otherwise excellent editor (cirt). That said, you made an excellent "closing rationale", and even had I personally had switched prior to your closing (I edit conflicted with you when you added the "yellow" closing template), I think you made a wise and informed decision. Cirt, if you are still reading this, I hope you harbor no ill-will in regards to this post, it is just something I needed to post on-wiki. I was going to move from support to neutral/oppose based on the opposition that arrived with diffs after I had offered my support. I wish you well with the admin tools, my potential movement from support to another position wasn't/wouldn't have been personal. Best of luck to you in your admin endeavors. Keeperǀ7622:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me pls for having a different opinion as the others here: I'm quite disappointed about your closing statement, because it doesn't mention at all the witchhunt that Jehochman and others conducted against opposing voters. Jehochman could have checked the voters discretely at the checkuser pages, the right place to do so. Instead, he publicly discussed possible points of suspicion directly on the RfA page, creating an atmosphere of "guilty until proven innocent". This made it look as though everybody who opposed was in a cabal with the sockpuppeteers. Combined with the fact that, as usual, opposing voices had to defend their position and their good faith, while on the other hand ridiculously hollow statements like "support YES" or "support WOW" (not even a "per nom" in it!) went unquestioned, the unashamed bullying certainly kept many from going on the record with their concerns. Again, Rlevse and Jehochman could have done 'their job' discretely, but they turned this into a very public witchhunt instead. Imho this was not in the best tradition of Wikipedia, but a very dire case of improperly influencing the RfA (almost as bad as the sockpuppeting, imho). And now, you don't mention this at all, but merely congratulate the overeager exorcists. Sry, but I really don't think this is a satisfactory closing statement. Gray62 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you as a person did not support the RFA and as someone who helped discretely gather the data at the crats request that all votes, including the supports, were analyzed very rigorously with an eye towards collusion and sockpuppetry. MBisanztalk22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What does it help gathering the data discretely, if the "evidence" is then placed on the RfA page, before the checkuser has happened? Sry, MBisanz, but you missed my point here. I'm not talking about Jehochman or others finally checking 'support' voters, too, after the double standard had been pointed out. What I'm concerned about is that Jehochman, as an admin, let accusations spread on the RfA page, without doing anything to prevent the intimidation of the editors. I mean, really, that WP: good faith has been turned so much into its total opposite that editors felt the need to preemptively defend against accusations of canvassing is telling. How many didn't dare to voice their opposition because they were afraid of becoming a target? Imho this is really a serious issue that has to be addressed. Do we want future RfAs to be like THIS? I don't hope so. Gray62 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well before the end of the RFA, and before Jehochman listed the open items, a lengthy analysis of all votes, support, oppose, and neutral had been conducted by several individuals and only those with questionable activities investigated further. In this case it happened to pan out that most of the socking was on the oppose side, in other cases that I've dealt with personally, the socking was on the support side, so its all part of everyday business. MBisanztalk00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you don't like disruption -- I certainly don't -- criticize the people causing the disruption, not those seeking to stop it. This RFA had the most cynical vote stacking I have ever seen. Also, you need to understand that administrators are just ordinary editors when not using sysop tools. In the course of this RFA, I did not undertake any administrative actions at all. Any user in good standing can make comments and request checkuser. JehochmanTalk03:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems like I can't get myself understood here. Maybe a translation problem. My point is, while getting rid of puppet players was necessary, you should have done the job more discretely. And by mentioning you being an admin, I meant that editors expect administrators to be role models of a respectful discourse at Wikipedia. So, I would have expected you to stand up against wild accusations of sockpuppeting and canvassing that intimidated innocent editors. But instead, you started violating against WP:Good faith (at the RfA (!), of all places. Certainly not the proper place to make a case for sockpuppetry. Imho this encouraged others to place accusations at the RfA, instead of posting at CU and waiting for a 'crat to check the issues, which would have been the right way. It would have been good, imho even necessary, at this point to remind people that the RfA isn't the right place to call for a CU - but nobody wanted to look like defending the probable sockpuppet. You would have been in a good, if not the best, position to dampen the emotions and assure that this doesn't become a general witchhunt against opposing voices, but instead you exploited the situation in order to shore up support for Cirt: "Any editor who gets so many socks and indef blocked vandals opposing their RFA deserves strong support." (as if this does say anything about the editor himself, except that he obviously has made many enemies).
Well, of course the suspicions against Eastbayway were eventually confirmed by Sam Korn, but this success seems to have reduced your standards of reasonable evidence, and subsequently you got carriedaway. The problem is, you didn't restrain yourself to making your case at the CU, you brought it into the RfA: "Gray62 has been inactive for nine months. This creates the appearance of a sleeper sock, or somebody who has been canvassed to show up here.". And then, even after Troikaologo and me had been aquitted by Sam Korn, this didn't stop you from voicing further suspicions: "This has caused me, and User:Rlevse, to wonder, how did you end up here? Did somebody ask you to come here and vote? You could answer that question and put our concerns to rest." Imho, this was the point where the RfA finally turned into the spanish inqusition, and one editor even felt the need to preemptively defend against possible accusations: "I should say explicitly that my participation here is not the result of canvassing; even as I have made but a handful of logged-in edits across the past two months".
Imho a clear sign that the atmosphere had become intimidating for opposing voices. We'll never know how many concerned editors feared to become the target of these spreading assumptions of bad faith and abstained from voicing their position. And while Jehochman deserves credit for exposing the puppeteers, he can't simply deny his own responsibility in this RfA becoming such a drama. Of course, I have a personal axe to grind in this, so take my comment with a grain of salt, but pls believe me that my concerns are not about me in the first place, but about genuine fear that RfAs will become a public courtroom for checkuser investigations. Imho admins and bureaucrats should take care to prevent this from becoming a precedent for future RfAs. Accusations don't belong on the 'vote' page, but at RfCU! On the RfA page, there should be only the stricken vote, followed by a note that this is a confirmed sockpuppet. If this isn't Wikipedia policy yet, at least it should be. And it would have been good for raising awareness of the problem if WJBscripe would have addressed the issue in his closing statment. Just my personal opinion as a small time editor, not influenced or encouraged by any cabal. Gray62 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
At this RFA, not less than 20% of the oppose votes were fraudulent. This sort of false consensus can cause good faith editors to pile on more opposes, rather than to evaluate the situation objectively. I try to set a good example, and have learned from this experience that taking such concerns to WP:RFCU, WP:SSP, or WP:BN may be a more desirable process. It is good to look at events in retrospect and figure out how to do better next time. Thank you for your comments. JehochmanTalk13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, while the socks sure have artificially inflated the 'oppose' vote at a certain point, it's also a fact that about 90 supporting editors where already on the record before the first 'nay' was posted. So, to say that there's been a "false consensus" favoring the critics is really a bit farfetched, imho. However, thx for supporting my view that sockpuppet accusations belong into the adequate sections dealing with them, not into the RfA. This is an important lesson that we all should be aware of. No bad feelings pls, and all the best wishes for your important work at exposing the damn puppeteers! Gray62 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe my statement was an appropriate one - it was my intention to address key issues with the RfA, not to deal with the conduct of everyone who commented on the discussion. Whilst it is true that some of Jehochman's questions to commentators were on the aggressive side (something he seems to acknowledge as I notice he struck various parts of those comments), I do not share your opinion as to the significance of this. I suspect many would be supportive of the necessity of asking tough questions to accounts whose contribution pattern raises suspicion, I certainly am. As well as socking issues, there were clearly canvassing problems which I commented on when closing the RfA. I do not regard it to be unreasonable on controversial discussions to request an explanation for why an account (a) is commenting on their first RfA or (b) has returned from a prolonged period absence in order to comment on an RfA. Such accounts are rare on run-of-the-mill RfAs and their presence on RfAs such as Cirt's is a cause for concern - especially when they represent a greater proportion of one group (in this case opposers) than others. If you feel that the conduct of a particular user was inappropriate, you are of course free to pursue this. But in my opinion Rlevse's contributions were positive and part of proper bureaucrat oversight of the process - he made it clear that he was also scrutinizing supporters several times - and I saw nothing in Jehochman's comments that warranted censure. It was a discussion that evoked strong opinions on both sides and it is understandable that some will be particularly passionate in arguing their points, especially when there is clear evidence of misconduct. WJBscribe(talk)19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Explanation
You say " I do not regard it to be unreasonable on controversial discussions to request an explanation for why an account (a) is commenting on their first RfA or (b) has returned from a prolonged period absence", and that's an entirely reasonable point. But wouldn't it be more appropriate to challenge the editor about it on their talk page and then proceed to further investigation if they couldn't give a satisfactory answer, rather than to conduct a public smear in the body of the RfA itself?
I speak as one who had never before voted on an RfA, and has not been hugely active on Wikipedia for a while, but the reason is quite straightforward. After a great many exchanges with an editor who was a fanatical POV-pusher guilty of repeated edit-warring, incivility and disruption, I notice that he announces his retirement, has his user page deleted and promptly returns with a different identity, which he then uses to build up an impeccable record. Maybe he is now a reformed character, or maybe he is following a different tack to pursue his agenda - but is it not reasonable that I should keep an eye on him?
I remain perturbed that the previous record was so assiduously hidden from the community, and find the "security concerns" justification for this to be totally unconvincing.
And is this not a more reasonable explanation for the presence of three other regular editors of the Landmark Education article than the wild accusations of collusion and canvasing? (Indeed, had there really been collusion, surely we would expect many more to have shown up?).
I respect the due process and the outcome; I wish Cirt all the best in his new role and trust the oversight processes to ensure that he is not tempted to abuse the position of trust he now holds to pursue his former agendas. DaveApter (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Recall and other matters
Although you may not take this seriously, I just want to throw it out there.
I am open to recall as described in my recall subpage. The requirements are quite simple; it takes ten administrators agreeing and I lose the bit.
Assuming you took me to ArbCom, you'd very likely have to convince six Arbitrators that I should be de-sysopped (all of whom are obviously administrators). Coupled with the four non-Arbitrator administrators who have previously called for me to be de-sysopped (yourself included), you could meet the quota without the necessity of bureaucracy and paperwork. (And, as an added bonus, there are a few non-admins whose votes I would certainly accept. Kim Bruning and Ned Scott come to mind as examples.)
While the recall process has always been voluntary, I am a man of my word. I promise you this would not turn into a mess like other recalls have should you choose to pursue it. I can also promise that I would bear no grudge toward you. While you may not believe it, I have quite a bit of respect for you, despite our various disagreements.
Semi-related to this issue is one of deletion log summaries. I feel there's been a bit of misunderstanding with regard to the log summaries I leave, and so I'd like to kindly clarify a few things.
When I first became an administrator, I decided on an all lowercase format for deletions (e.g., 'csd r1'). This was easiest to type (no shift key required, only one hand needed for some of the criteria, etc.) and for the most part, I've kept with that format for all of my deletions. I've made exceptions, but my slight obsessive-compulsive nature has usually forced me to keep the same format.
In addition to consistency, there was always a thought in my mind that the type of deletions I was doing (the uncontroversial speedy type) deserved as little extra space in the database as possible. This view is not entirely logical as the total amount of space saved is infinitesimally negligent compared to the size of the database as a whole, but oh well. Short unlinked summaries also have the obvious issue of confusing the hell out of new users. I finally caved in today and changed the log summary to at least link to the relevant part of CSD policy.
P.S. You're not open to recall? You should do it; it's a fun time. :-)
I know you've made yourself available to recall, and do not plan to request you step down at this time. I have never been a supporter of recall, am not open to recall myself, and regret the one time when I endorsed such a request. In those circumstances, I would consider it rather hypocritical if I were now to start such a request. Besides, I am awaiting the outcome of the Sarah Palin ArbCom case to decide what action (if any) to take. Newyorkbrad's proposed remedy is acceptable to me although it stops short of what I would like; I would have no problem with you continuing as an admin were you to act in a manner more respectful of consensus and less based on your personal beliefs of what is an appropriate action. Consensus here meaning that on-wiki, not of the few people who tend to echo your opinions on IRC. Sometimes we have to accept the fact that others disagree however much we may believe ourselves to be right - in my experience, not only do you not do that, you rarely bother bother even to argue your case and are openly contemptuous of those who disagree.
Hello WJBscribe. In an unprecedented case, 4 users (including you) left messages on my talk page and I only noticed them quite by chance much later (probably thanks to Avala and Durova who must've left their unrelated messages at the bottom of my talk page shortly after each one of you). I hope that none of you felt like I was ignoring your messages. Anyway, I must admit that I was definitely not expecting you to drop by and deliver such encouraging words, which I deeply appreciated. Your action turned out to be the final revelation of my RfB, which despite its catastrophic outcome, was quite worthwhile. And in your case, in a very positive way. You see, this RfB had already made me reflect about the unfairness and irony of isolate events, and their ultimate capacity to gobble an entire record of uneventful dedication. Not that I was unaware of it, but until now I had given little thought about it. But now I realize that, just like in real life, a less pleasing encounter should not dictate over a long established positive impression. And you came to my mind, along with less than a handful of other users. Your message on my talk page confirmed that my reflection was timely and accurate. I am glad and relieved about it. Again I thank your words, which meant a lot to me. Best regards, Húsönd03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting the mediation request - you're aware of the legal background, I hope? Particularly that the subject of the article has issued legal threats both on and off-wiki about suing editors and the WMF over the editing and content of the article? In the past, we've advised editors who are from the UK to stay away from this particular article. I'm not sure if the same advice applies equally to mediating a dispute, but just so you know - there is some risk that you could get caught up in drama of an off-wiki nature in addition to the standard share of mediation. Avruch T 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I mentioned the legal position in an email to the MedCom list asking for a suitable mediator to volunteer for this one. Do bear in mind that my acceptance is as chair of the committee pending the allocation of a mediator - I do not propose to mediate the dispute myself. WJBscribe(talk)04:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If you're puzzled at what is going on at all the Israel-Palestine articles, please have a look at this. It might be a shockingly extreme example - except that it's not, the same effect has been achieved at many of other articles by various means, and it's what's happened at Battle of Jenin too. PRtalk08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
For real
Hi, I am going to ask you for assistance, alright? I have been on Wikipedia for over three years, perhaps four. I have been an editor over that period of time as well. I am running into some problems because as you know Wikipedia is overrun with drama. now, I am asking to correspond with you and perhaps remedy this situation. a little bit of background: I only recently got into difficulty and that was because I happened to be involved with two "current news item pages". I should have known I was asking for problems; instantly I have people trying to tail me. anyway, let's discuss this. Assuredly (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You are very welcome to raise any problems you may be having on this page or by email and I will of course see if there is anything I can do to help. WJBscribe(talk)21:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know your email! yes, I need your help. I don't really want to broadcast all of it on here; isn't there something more private? Assuredly (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Recently I filed a request for userpation at WP:USURP to be changed from Prom3th3an to Promethean. Raul654 denied the request with this explanation. The context of the rejection is that I recently made a personal attack agaisnt Raul on ANI prior to feuding on our talkpages. something that I am sorry about and have apologised numerous times for. I have been blocked twice in the past for civilty issues (RyanPoss has said that they were for very minor disruption) I have made 7100+ edits to wikipedia. Following my attack and apology to Raul, this ANI thread started, it degraded to calling for my Ban. The ban did not pass as it only had 5 supports and ~16 opposes or equilivents. Raul was a user who wanted me banned as seen in the first thread.
I had plans to get back on track, bury the past and get back to what we are here for. However it seems Raul in an attempt to be "Mean Spirted" denied my request twice. This is the only usurp he has gotton involved in since the 9th of April. Showing a clear motive to comment on that particuler usurp
I would like you to review the situation as Raul654 appears to be biased and only denied my request as a punitive measure claiming that I am not an editor in good standing and that is a requirement. The "good standing" remark is not written anywhere as a requirement and its application to me is debatable considering that the good I have done outways the bad.
I hope that this can be resolved so that we can all get back to what we are ment to be doing, building an encyclopedia.
Hi WJBscribe, thanks for moving my account! I have an off topic question though - I was just recently approved for the ACC tool, however it doesn't seem to be recognized in wikipedia [3] - is there anything I need to do? Thanks in advance --Flewis(talk)13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Access to the account creation tool and being assigned the "account creator" userright are two different things. Instructions on using the tool and creating accounts can be found at Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide. If you find you are fulfilling enough requests for accounts that you hit the "throttle" (the maximum number of new accounts that a non-admin can create in a day), you will need to be given the "account creator" userright, which bypasses the throttle. Feel free to ask me or any other administrator should you find that you need the userright. WJBscribe(talk)14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm kirikou_fr. I'm an user on the french wikipédia where the name of my account is kirikou. I want to merge my accounts on all the wikiprojects. So I need to rename my account here into kirikou. Is it possible? Thank you.--kirikou_fr (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in my request. I was not even aware that there was not one, but two Eleos accounts. Do you recommend recreating the original EleosPrime account to "guard against impersonation" as stated on the Usurpation page?
For all your contributions to Wikipedia. I award this barnstar to WJBscribe who should be declared as a role model to all Wikipedians. =Nichalp«Talk»=17:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have toned down my remarks. Some day this will all be history and we'll hopefully be enjoying better times. I am not a person who holds grudges. JehochmanTalk20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Heya
I'm currently working on an expanded version of the Court of Common Pleas article to go with my list work on the Chief Justices; as a law graduate would you be able to take a look and make sure I haven't made any obvious errors? I appreciate that as a historic court it may not be a topic you've studied, but two heads are better than one. Ironholds04:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
