Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:19, 7 January 2012

02:34, Wednesday 25 December 2024

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Thanks

Thanks for removing the speedy tag - being reverted by a bot is quite frustrating! violet/riga  23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Speedy tagging is becoming all too trigger happy - not hard to imagine why new users are being put off if someone new to the site similarly follows a red link, and decides helpfully to start an article and is reward with a speedy tag for their efforts... WJBscribe (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi, hope all is well with you and yours. I've finally been shamed into creating User:WereSpielChequers/Recall (Pedro named me in his, so I realised I really ought to have one myself). Would you be willing to be on the list? If so just edit it and move your name out of the hidden bit. ϢereSpielChequers 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course - happy to. WJBscribe (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You have mail

You have mail. I would like to sort the matter of 7 Dec 2007 out once and for all. I would really appreciate your help. 86.180.187.79 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

CUOS

Cheers for your support, hope to see you in November. WilliamH (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

no bullying

Please do not bully people. You put a nasty warning on my page but not on the vandals page.

I wrote some good stuff with references. I discussed it on the Barack Obama talk page.

Fat&Happy and DD2K did nothing like that. They just remove material. I have a close to perfect explanation while irrelevant things have no place in the article. They are incapable of responding intelligently. Yet you threaten me. That is not very nice of you. Please explain this to me. Why are you threatening me but don't tell the other people that they should be discussing improvements like I did. Jack Paterno (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to cool your approach down and stop accusing editors of vandalism, bullying etc. Your edit warring on Barack Obama is disruptive and a number of editors seem to take issue with those edits. Until you have established on the talkpage that your changes are good ones, you can't just redo them. If your revert the article again, you will be blocked for breaching the three revert rule. WJBscribe (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to be neutral, here's what you should do.

You should also write to DD2K and tell him that it is far more diplomatic and productive if he would discuss his opposition. Writing "For Pete's Sake" is very aggressive. It is not much better that "Fuck you, I will make it my way".

If you are neutral, people respect you more.

How would you like it if you wrote some reasonable stuff and I removed it and added an edit summary of "For Pete's Sake" or "Fuck you, I will make it my way". Jack Paterno (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Obama articles are under a 1RR restriction, and this user has far exceeded that. Not to mention this user is definitely a sock of Gaydenver/JB50000/BAMP/ect.etc.. In fact, one needs only to look at one of the 'reports' filed by one of the socks to see obvious similarities. I would file yet another SPI case, but I don't have the time right now and it's getting pretty tedious. Dave Dial (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Now blocked. WJBscribe (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you too. We probably won't hear a peep again from that account(given the usual SOP of this user), but there seems to be a never ending supply of others. Thanks again. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek XII

I feel the two articles should be seperate, rather than one so the new one can differ from the old. Do you mind re-deleting that restoration? RAP (talk) 15:22 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. There should not be two articles on the same subject. What should have happened is that the old article should have been un-redirected, and then new content added to it, rather than a new article created. Now that has been spotted, it is appropriate to now merge the two histories. WJBscribe (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's my point, that article was redirected to the article i had started (i didn't know that already existed). Why was it restored, we could of just refound the info. I had the previous article redirect deleted to make room for this one, which i planned to redirect. RAP (talk) 15:34 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't split content at different locations - all the content about this topic should be one article, particularly as there appears to have been useful sourced content in the old article that wasn't used in the new one. I realise it was accidental that we ended up with the edit history split in two places, but that's what history merges are for. I really don't understand why you'd want the two histories to be separate. WJBscribe (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What did that version have that isn't covered in the later made one? I asked it to be deleted so i could make the new (and better) version redirect over to Star Trek XII as a temporary local. User:Daskill's version didn't need restoration at all and should be re-deleted. RAP (talk) 2:19 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have asked for it to be deleted if you didn't know it existed...
Anyway, we don't delete "old versions" of articles to make way for new, arguably better ones. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. If I wanted to improve Elephant, I wouldn't do it by creating another article and trying to persuade everyone that my version is better and ask that the current one be deleted. I still don't understand why you want the old revision of this particular article deleted and can't think of any Misplaced Pages policy that would allow (let alone require) the deletion of the older revisions of the article. WJBscribe (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The main reason is that i want to keep the two histories seperate. There's a two year gap inbetween. And it shows on the talk page that the article endured two AFD's. RAP (talk) 14:11 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's supposed to show on the talkpage - it has had two AfDs. Even if I did delete the old revisions (which, as I have explained above, I don't think Misplaced Pages policies allow me to do), it would still be appropriate to refer to both on the talkpage. The current state of affairs - all the history of this article in one place - seems entirely satisfactory and in keeping with usual Misplaced Pages practice. WJBscribe (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA closure

Thank you for your close of my recent successful RFA. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, 17:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck. WJBscribe (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your evidence to ArbCom

To further the confusion Delta (talk · contribs) is someone else! See WP:UUN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Fixed. WJBscribe (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What's interesting in that discussion is that User:Delta was not registered at the time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently an that's actually an incorrect assetion made in that discssion; see Special:Contributions/Delta -- a single edit in 2004. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The following chunk from the 2010 WP:BN discussion is also interesting:

@Betacommand, you've stated a few times you are under no restrictions, however WP:RESTRICT has a section listed for User:Betacommand with an expiry time of 'indefinite'. Has this been vacated? –xeno 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure why that was placed there as those are not actual editing restrictions. Rather the conclusion of an arbcom case. Other than stressing that I follow standard policies, with that case there where no specific editing restrictions put into place. ΔT 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie

Hi, I think that your unblock of La goutte de pluie was a really bad decision given that the discussion of this at WP:AN has only just gotten started, there's no consensus on it one way or the other and the blocking admin is yet to comment. In particular, your statement in the unblock message that "the admin was involved" definitely does not reflect the views of most of the editors who've commented so far. I think that you should reinstate the block pending the outcome of the discussion, as it looks a lot like wheel warring at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on wheel warring, because this isn't it. I undid a block in clear violation of policy - the admin blocked an editor for restoring a non-vandal edit he had reverted . He then got into an argument with the blocked user on her talkpage and even removed her ability to edit her talkapge . Not only was the first block poor but, in the circumstances, it was clear any further action should be by another admin. Neverteless, he went ahead and blocked for 1 month in response to further conduct in relation to the same subject matter. That's unambiguously involved.
As to reblocking, unless there is further disruption, there is no reason to reinstate a bad block. WJBscribe (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a wheel war. Toddst1 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My RFA closure

I'm disappointed about the premature closure. I agree that the procedure was unlikely to succeed, but seeing as the count was 8/24/3 within 16 hours of opening, and 7/5/4 since then, with many reverses and indents, I'm very unhappy that, especially given the holiday weekend, the close occurred with no notice. I have no argument with your decision to close; as a trusted crat, I respect you are doing what's best for the pedia, but I disagree that there was little chance of success. Many of the opposes were of the "pile on/I haven't really investigated the candidate" type. Given the small amount of questions asked me, and immediate rush to judgement based almost entirely on two non-admin closes for which I was never questioned (and had reasonable response), I was planning to ask the procedure run full length. I wish I'd been consulted before such a close, but perhaps my opinion isn't relevant or applicable. To be absolutely clear, I'm not disappointed the run was unsuccessful; I'm disappointed that so few wikipedians were able to participate (over a holiday weekend) and that even though I'd requested the chance for the procedure to stay open, to accept questions (I had refuted much of what was first brought against me), the close was premature, IMHO. BusterD (talk)

RFAs aren't really a good place for feedback - editor reviews and such tend to generate much more contructive commentary. I'm afraid your RfA isn't going to succeed and I think this is a good point to walk away, hence my close. If you would really like it reopened, I am willing to do so, but I really doubt you'd find the another few days a positive experience. WJBscribe (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to reopen the procedure. I'd like you to make a statement or flag the procedure that the candidate wishes the procedure to run full-length. I hope this isn't pointy, but I think I was piled on early and I have a chance to make a comeback. If I'm wrong, I owe you a root beer. BusterD (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Up to you - I wouldn't normally do this as I don't think there's benefit to the 'pedia in requests running longer than they need to, but I'll make an exception given the festive season and all. Best of luck. WJBscribe (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Buster, this is a lousy call on your part. You state here that you "refuted" the notion that you didn't correctly assess community consensus in the poorly-closed AFDs. Yet here you are, defying community consensus -- which seems clear to everyone but you -- on your RFA. Twice now you've complained about community volunteers who are only trying to save other volunteers' time by closing a process that has clearly served its actual purpose. Townlake (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect Townlake's opinion, and it's possible this may have a negative impact on any future run. In my reply to Townlake, I put forward a reasonable rationale, still undiscussed, as to why the non consensus close was within the acceptable range. In my reply to Kudpung, I punctured the assertion I'd been warned for 3RR, pointed out that not editing the way that user does is not a valid rationale for opposing, demonstrated a recent track record of citation at a high level of competency, while expanding explanation for my closure choice on MLI. In my reply to Colonel Warden, I admitted and corrected the mistaken close on Lord's Bank. Virtually all the opposes which follow are based on the flawed analysis I've discussed here. Several users have indented and/or switched their !votes since that time. In view of the trend, and in view of the fact the entire process to date has occurred over two of the most important family days in the English speaking world (which speaks to the narrow participation to date), I believe I have every right to expect the trend to continue in my favor. I'm not at this point defying community consensus because it hasn't yet been adequately measured. One non-admin ignored my request that the procedure not be snowballed, and a well-intention bureaucrat also chose to close without consulting. I respect your disagreeing and acknowledge this may turn some editors against me. I would hope editors investigate each candidate and not merely depend on the first few opposes to guide the discussion, as so many have seem to have done, by their own words. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen to withdraw my candidacy, and take this as a lesson learned. I have posted a request to close at the Bureaucrat noticeboard. In retrospect, last night I should have asked you to reopen the procedure long enough for me to post a withdrawal statement, but my self will led me to choose differently. I apologize for any hardship or extra effort this may have caused. Thanks for your good common sense, reasonable words, and your willingness to try to see things my way. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Whistling

In case my ANI post was unclear:

I do not care if an admin blocks someone for e.g. "whistling on a Tuesday". It's still not appropriate to unblock it, without consensus.

If admins wheel-war, we have a massive problem.

We need to TALK about stuff.  Chzz  ►  03:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A new low

Your unblock of LGDP is one of the most myopic and naive administrative actions I've seen on Misplaced Pages recently. You really should investigate things much more thoroughly and understand the context before you take actions like this. Reverting the continuation of previous disruption does not make an admin involved and apparently you can't recognize even blatant pointy editing and manipulation of the community. Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for help on some RFD's by

Hello, I noticed that you've gotten involved in issues with User:Toddst1 who has been aggressive at going after other contributors. Recently I have felt harassed by the same individual who has recommended nearly every article that I've written for RFD. I have been able to get one RFD reversed for John Torboss Underhill. I've made progress towards getting another lifted on Estelle Skidmore Doremus and the Underhill Society of America. There are still several more articles with RFD's still in place to focus on. I don't disagree with the need to make improvements on any of these articles that I've posted, and have demonstrated my willingness to continue doing so. Still to have so many RFD's is discouraging. I value Misplaced Pages as a tool for research and have shown my appreciation by improving a number of articles unrelated to my primary interests (see Saint Nicholas Society in the City of New York, 27th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, etc.). I'd like to continue to make positive and constructive contributions, though in order to do so it would restore my confidence to see contributions that I've made receive fair treatment. Thank you for your consideration and any help that you may be able to provide, in advance. Placepromo (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Betacommand's name

Hi WJBscribe. I've just read your comment: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_WJBscribe. I am unclear on the appropriate procedures, though Misplaced Pages:Changing_username/Guidelines#When_changing_usernames_is_probably_inappropriate indicates that a change of username (regardless of its form) for users who are under ArbCom restrictions would be inappropriate, and should come to ArbCom. On following your link I don't see a clear consensus for/against a name change. The change, it appears, was under discussion when it was carried out after an off-wiki discussion, and the bureaucrat making the change has no record of the discussion, and only a foggy memory of it. From my reading of the matter it doesn't look like appropriate steps were taken, yet it wasn't blocked or reversed, nor did anyone contact ArbCom. Can you shed some more light on this matter? Was the name change carried out appropriately? If not, why did nobody revert it? Why wasn't ArbCom informed? What is the normal process for when a name change has been carried out erroneously or inappropriately? SilkTork 12:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is turning into a longer answer than I'd hoped, so I'll break it down a bit:

1. Was the name change carried out appropriately? Borderline. In general we rename enwiki accounts that haven't edited to allow for SUL unification. Easy example: someone has several thousand edits as User:Foo on the German wikipedia, has created a global account, and User:Foo, although created by someone else, hasn't edited here. Renaming User:Foo here is uncontroversial. By the same token, if someone shows that they own User:Δ on another project and unified their account globally, then if User:Δ here has no/few edits here, the rename would be uncontroversial (except that opinions differ on whether non-latin usernames are generally undesirable). Of course, it appears that Deskana knew that it was Betacommand who had control of User:Δ on whichever wiki became the "home wiki" for the account. He was also one of the bureaucrats who had turned down the initial request, but I suspect had forgotten that.
2. Why did nobody revert it? I suspect no one was sure what "reverting" would entail. After all, User:Betacommand had not been renamed. He had become able to edit as User:Δ and intended to cease editing as User:Betacommand. I'm not aware of any other occasion where someone has gone about getting the name they want in quite the way that this user did. I suppose the userrights that were moved could have been moved back - but the discussions shows a grudging consensus that this was OK. One of the reasons I posted the evidence is that I wondered if this remained the case once users started experiencing the practical differences of interacting with him under the new name.
3. Why wasn't ArbCom informed? I can only answer why think I did not inform ArbCom. The first person to respond to this thread was Rlevse, who was then an arbitrator. Though he wasn't commenting qua arbitrator, I probably assumed he was best placed to inform the Committee if the situation if appropriate. Also, ArbCom considered a motion which made reference to the new name within a couple of days of that discussion starting: . My vague recollection is that - in view of the wider issues - no one was very interested in my comments about the fact that change of name was inappropriate/likely to cause disruption.
4. What is the normal process for when a name change has been carried out erroneously or inappropriately? It would be reversed if possible. Sometimes easier said than done, see this discussion for an example of a rename that should never have been done in the first place which ultimately proved to be too much trouble to undo.
   In this instance, I'm not sure a name change was carried out inappropriately. General practice suggests that having only one person with the username User:Δ on all projects is a good thing - from a SUL point of view at least. The question is whether the User:Δ account should be used for editing Misplaced Pages. If suppose if the answer is "no", then User:Δ would simply be blocked and the user in question would return to using his User:Betacommand account.

Hope the above clarifies things (I realise it may not, the position is not entirely straightforward!). I'm around if I can answer any other questions. WJBscribe (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is useful background. Thanks. SilkTork 19:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that there was an ArbCom discussion on the rename. The issue is foggy, and I think people will have their own opinions on what occurred. I don't see that there would be much benefit in ArbCom looking at the matter again, though it was useful for you to bring it up. SilkTork 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not having been on the committee at 2010, I'm not sure whether Arbcom believed it had clear juristiction at the time of the "rename". Was he under any "parole or restriction" as required by Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Changes of account name by restricted users. Betacommand certainly didnt think so as he said at WP:BN "...I waited to do the rename here on en.wp until I was no longer under any restrictions, in order to make the least hassle and drama, thanks. Δ (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)" He did this on the day that his restrictions expired (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand - 08:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)) After the BN and AC motion, there was a clarification requested by Xeno about Delta's assertion that he was "no longer under any restrictions". Kirill indicated that he considered the unban conditions to have been indefinite, however ongoing restrictions should have meant that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Changes of account name by restricted users was in effect and yet Kirill didnt indicate that the new name had been approved by Arbcom. John Vandenberg 20:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, now I am wondering whether the committee was given an opportunity to review the mentorship, as the wording of item 4 of the restrictions suggests that the restrictions would be extended for another year if required. As I dont recall any monthly reports in 2009, I've asked the mentors to verify that they did send monthly reports at User_talk:Hersfold#Betacommand_monthly_reports and User_talk:MBisanz#Betacommand_monthly_reports. John Vandenberg 21:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The mentors have replied so I have added an FoF Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop#Unban conditions not met. --John Vandenberg 01:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Per your recent involvement

You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)