Misplaced Pages

Aramgar's socks, good catch

I had the same suspicions when I saw their contribs. Good catch. I cant imagine how anyone could create different accounts and do controversial editing like this in the end. --Matt57 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, man. Sweet catch. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Heckling

Be careful about jumping to conclusions . I had good reason to be suspicious of those opposes as Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aramgar confirms. Of course I will defer to another bureaucrat in determining the outcome of the RfA but I am not going to allow blatant vote fraud to go unchallenged. WjBscribe 00:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You linked to the wrong place. Regardless, I have a feeling you didn't read my addendum, which clarified that I don't believe that was what you were doing. I stand by my point, though, that it may have looked bad to some because you have been a strong supporter of Elonka for quite some time. If you're willing to put up with that opposition, and defend your actions (hopefully, beyond your curt statement in response to Johnbod), then fine; that's up to you. (Yes, I know this seems reminiscent of the discussion over whether I should have !voted on Elonka's RfA.) -- tariqabjotu 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the diff was cut off. Nonetheless I had literally minutes before the close of the RfA to get a checkuser to confirm the sockpuppetry - that didn't leave much time for pleasantries. I agree I would need to be uninvolved to close an RfA and never had any intention of closing this one. But exposing the abuse of multiple accounts to try and undermine an RfA candidate is not something that requires impartiality. They were socks and have been shown to be socks. I hope a lesson has been learned by all here. WjBscribe 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't require impartiality, but one might suggest that you only scrutinized opponents, and not supporters, for sockpuppets because you've been a strong supporter of Elonka. Again, not saying that's what you did. -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're all spectators now. The die has been cast and we await the result... WjBscribe 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Image reverts

I was aware that that I was geting close to 3RR however he was editing out something without consensus and thats clearly vandalism (removing content, despite being told not to and despite being told its against policies). I was actually waiting for you to get the image back in but when you did not, I went ahead and did it myself. What should I have done then, asked you to revert it then instead of doing it myself? --Matt57 23:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert as I don't have an opinion on whether the image should be included or not. I haven't read the discussions in full. Presumably one of the other people who advocated its inclusion on the talkpage would have restored it. But as you both have now reverted 3 times, I could hardly block one party and not even warn the other. Still as you didn't threaten to continue reverting until the page was protected, I think there's a clear difference. WjBscribe 00:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok well if it happens again, I'll ask Elonka or other editors to restore it as they are familiar with this. --Matt57 00:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for closing my RFA

Mail

Hi, WJBscribe. Could you check your mail, please? Bishonen | talk 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Username change

Thanks for changing my username, its much apreciated BonesBrigade 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile and notification of something you may want to see

Maser has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I recently started a thread on the administrator's noticeboard you may want to see - Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard#User:Defender 911.

About my username change

Thanks for the username from Staka2ont to Staka. However, for some reason, when I sign a message on talk pages with --~~~~, my old username shows up. I thought you might know the reason why since you changed my user? I hope you can fix this problem. I'll sign this message with using the tildes for now.. --Staka2ont 02:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have this still set in your signature at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Preferences ? Alice 08:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi; this doesn't seem to have been closed; any ideas why not? Chrislintott (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably just that no one has gotten round to it yet - there's a bit of a backlog. I'm just about to rush off to get a train down to Devon - if it isn't closed when I log on this evening, I'll close it myself. WjBscribe 10:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Thank you for my username change. I'll make a new account on my previous name, to prevent stealing my identity.

Best regards,

--Dnik (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

a new admin is block crazy

What is the process for reviewing an admin? An admin stupidly blocked me. I found out they literally JUST became an admin yesterday. I repeatedly asked/told them to read but instead they blocked me. 70.108.140.158 (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well as you identified, they're new to the job - perhaps ease up on them? Mistakes are only human. I'm not sure that blanking your talkpage and replacing it with this message was the best way to convince everyone that you were acting in good faith. I think its probably best if everyone learns from the incident and moves on - dwelling on it is unlikely to help. WjBscribe 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dwelling. I 'd just like some 1 2 remind him\her that he needs 2 look carefully. Fresh out the stalls and is block block block block. User:NrDg's problem wasnt about my talk page, it was about the edits to Victoria Beckham. I repeatedly asked User:NrDg to look but instead of doing that User:NrDg kept reverting & then blocked. I clearly stated \id'd the edit: I deleted dbl info-> that personal section was there 2x. Instead of looking,User:NrDg just kept reverting and then blocked me. If u look @ User:NrDg's edits they 're alot of blocks. Look @ nrdg's block log. W/in 24 hrs of being an admin it is block block block block block. I know wiki motto is be bold, but User:NrDg's is being overzealous. nrdg has even said "You're probably much more familiar with how wikipedia works than I am ". User:NrDg's needs guidance.70.108.140.158 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well recent blocks of schools for a month seems like reason for concern. Perhaps you'll do some digging, Scribe? the_undertow 07:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into it now, but will try and review things tomorrow.

WjBscribe 00:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Gentleness

While I am of course aware of WP:GHBH, Gentleness does indeed seem to only have made positive, useful contributions to the project. This seems worthy of an unblock, let's AGF for a bit. GlassCobra 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be entirely happy for with an unblock for two main reasons:

1. I disagree that his edits have all been positive and useful - odd behaviour by that account lead to my looking into it in the firstplace. This edit summary for instance, given that there was long running banter on Misplaced Pages Review about vandalism having been introduced into articles edited by Durova undetected.
2. More improtantly I don't know enough about the circumstances of Veesicle's block. It's far from an ordinary one - 4 checkusers (2 current Arbitrators and 2 former ones) signed off the original block . That suggests to me behaviour that went beyond a minor good hand/bad hand issue.

If you're serious about an unblock, I would get in touch with Jpgordon as the original blocking admin and ask if its appropriate for the person behind the Veesicle account to continue editing Misplaced Pages. WjBscribe 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your first point, I thought it was a bit ridiculous that Gregory Kohs had pointed out his own vandalism many times, bragging about it, and yet nobody had bothered to go and fix it. I know a lot of people on Misplaced Pages read WR and tbh it's a bit sad that none of them bothered to change it . 86.164.161.214 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how you can disagree with my edits being 'positive' using my removing vandalism as evidence? 86.164.161.214 (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of Jayjay47 (talk · contribs)

Just to let you know that I've blocked this user for 72 hours as they continued to upload copyrighted images without licenses or rationales in spite of your numerous warnings. WjBscribe 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I'd support the block, since he has ignored my warnings since the first time I approached him. But on this occasion, I'm curious to know why exactly he was blocked. He has only uploaded two new images sine the last time I warned him, and the only thing lacking were rationales (they had sources and template licensing). I haven't been on Misplaced Pages for a while due to school, but is it a blockable offense nowadays, considering that policies are continually updated, to block a user for failing to use rationals (he probably doesn't know how to use them)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist (talk • contribs) 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

He uploaded more than two, did you check the ones that I deleted? There are two images that merely lacked rationales but a further 5 that had no copyright information at all ... WjBscribe 12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your link showed that he uploaded only five images after I warned him. I warned him on the 13th, and he uploaded five images after that— two on the 14th and three on the 15th, all of which had proper tags and sources (the html appears beside the images in the link that you gave me). The only thing they lacked were rationales, which he probably doesn't know how to provide. According to Image:Diamondcrimemob.jpg, which I restored, he even tagged the image and requested help with the licensing.

I believe the block to be unjustified. It's probably up by now, but if its not, I'm requesting that he be unblocked. He didn't necessarily follow my suggestion about not uploading any images (after all, I can't control him), but he did make an effort to provide proper source info. Somehow, when you were deleting his images, you stated that they lacked source and copyright info. But as Image:Diamondcrimemob.jpg indicates, that is not entirely the case.

This is just a huge misunderstanding. Orane (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind

Disregard my last msg. His block expired, and he's at it again. And this time, he's being spiteful. Orane (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

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) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)