User talk:WJBscribe

01:54, Friday 10 January 2025

User:WJBscribe	User talk:WJBscribe	User:WJBscribe/Gallery	User:WJBscribe/Barnstars	User:WJBscribe/Drafts
Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you...

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

Will

United Kingdom

Thanks for answering my plaintive cry so quickly. :) Abtract 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we were working on fixing a series of page moves by the same vandal. I've now move protected the page so it can't happen again... WjBscribe 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need help with "to speak movie" delete review (to undelete it)...

To Speak, was screen at Montreal Festival amendment.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of To Speak. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jesslynism 07:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Sigh... okay, then I guess you can reopen it. I just didn't see the point, as you addressed my major consideration about navigability of categories, and all that's left now is people talking about how "gay people need this list to know there are other gay people out there" keep votes. I just don't see how the outcome would change either way. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I was under the impression that if the nominator withdrew the AfD it could shut regardless of the votes. Is this not the case? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are either closed early under the rules at WP:SK or WP:SNOW. There nothing that says the nominator's opinion is more important than that of everyone else, so the fact they change their mind doesn't seem a major factor if there are multiple "delete" opinions. WjBscribe 18:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flags?

It looks like there are several. Am I wrong? -- Cecropia 03:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I flagged Snakebot. I was referring to some at the very bottom of the page that don't seem to be flagged. -- Cecropia 03:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:P usurpation

I am doing some checking on sockpuppets over at en:Wikiquote by seeing if there are similar names here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you posted a notice on 11 July 2007, currently at User talk:P#Request for Usurpation, for usurpation of a username. I'm not clear on what an usurpation looks like after the fact, so I don't know if "P" is (A) the original username that was not usurped, despite the lack of reply from P on this page; or (B) the end-result of the usurpation, with no mention of the original username. I checked the WP:CHU archives for both "Rejected/Unfulfilled" and "Usurpations" in the 11-18 July timeframe, but saw no mention of "P" or of any requested username change that seemed to suggest "P" might be involved. Could you tell me what happened here, or at least point me to the appropriate records? Thank you for your help. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I sometimes notify accounts where a usurpation request has been made at WP:CHU/U where the user making the request has forgotten to do so. The request was ultimately withdrawn by the requester, so no usurpations were performer. A record of the request is in the archives at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Rejected/2#P ← WODUP. User:P remains user User:P. Hope that helps. WjBscribe 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry to bother you; I didn't think to review the rejected usurpations pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot RFA

WJBScribe, I've added a questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot. It may seem obvious, but was a matter of issue with past requests of this sort. Please ping me via talk if you choose to reply. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy response. I've entered my support on the RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a couple of questions in your RFA as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL#Examples

Do you find false accusations not uncivil?[1] Do you find this comment (which you likewise surely saw) not uncivil?[2] And from WP:CIVIL#Examples: "More serious examples include…Calling for bans or blocks."[3]
When those things happen, it leads to hard feelings and strong words. Perhaps you cracked a smile at that second comment, perhaps not, but it left me more determined to stick up for this beleaguered whistleblower, who has been made today's scapegoat of the WP/IRC community, to the point that we're free to ridicule him as we please, even as he's blocked and unable to respond. Perhaps you thought the first inaccuracy, for which he was blocked, a minor detail, perhaps not (I've seen no apologies, save from the honorable Chaser) but I saw gross miscarriage of fact and of justice, which is what to begin with obliged me to rise to his defense: it should have obliged you, too.Proabivouac 06:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt57's "sockpuppetry". Given the similarity in edits between Matt57 and that account, I can't see how Shell can be faulted for presuming sockpuppetry. You might like to remember though that the checkuser request that exhonerated Matt57 was filed by me - I could simply have relied on WP:DUCK and supported a block made on behavioural evidence but instead I sought further investigation.
Moreschi's support comment. Actually I had not seen that previously - I don't read every support on every RfA. It is at the borderline of civility - but if Matt57's reputation on Wikipedia has to declined to such a low that his oppostion of someone encourages support from others, I think he seriously needs to rethink the way in which he's contributing to this project. And no, I didn't smile - I find Matt57's conduct utterly outrageous as you well know. If it does not improve after his block, I will support further sanctions against him.
I am sorry but I cannot see how holding you to the terms of your probation could possibly be uncivil. I could have simply posted to WP:AE straight away. But I was aware that to do so I would have to link to the sanction in the RFARB in question and that would have meant pointing people to a page containing your real name. I knew this would upset you and so gave you the option to retract the comment instead.

I think that an adequate response to the diffs you have pointed me too. As before, I strongly urge to move on from old disputes rather than dwell bitterly upon them. I would also recommend that you sever your unfortunate association with Matt57, which seems to be leading you into unnecessary confrontations and further damaging your standing on this project. WjBscribe 07:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My standing on this project has been irrevocably damaged by the violation of my privacy at the hands of an administrator who was first set upon me, via IRC, as a component of this very dispute.

I'll not dispute your second two points. As for the first, I don't actually fault anyone for assuming sockpuppetry, except insofar as it was imperceptive and naïve - a breach of competence (at least I saw what was going on immediately,) not of faith. What I object to is the lack of a subsequent apology, at least on the part of the one who first raised this false charge. Chaser made the same error, and apologized. That's gold in my eyes.

For Matt57, it should be obvious to you that I don't pick who to defend based upon their popularity, else I should have long ago allied with you and helped to ban him.

Considerations of chivalry and common decency aside, what Matt57 advocated - to eliminate all material not squarely based upon reliable sources - is right by policy, and right for this project, and is no different from what I would have done on any other article.Proabivouac 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I also observe that the characterization "holding you to the terms of your probation" is demonstrably inaccurate: there was nothing whatsoever in those terms, nor in WP:PROBATION, which I'd violated. You cannot quote it because it doesn't exist, a straightforward observation of fact which dozens of others, including highly respected administrators (the old guard, not this new IRC-based clique,) shared. Whereas what was done to me violated the very clear language of WP:HARASS. An honorable organization doesn't invoke WP:IAR according to some ex post-facto and impromptu "spirit," but stands by its every word; its guarantees to its volunteer contributors are sacred and gold. Nor am I rightly on probation now, except to disrupt Wikipedia (and my life) to make a point.Proabivouac 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really would appreciate if you would make more judicious use of the "show preview" button to compose your posts in one go. I am finding the constant appearance of the orange bar rather distracting.... WjBscribe 08:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question I admit I am curious about. You seem to blame an IRC-clique for the outing of your previous username under which you were sanctioned by ArbCom, which you say is your real name. But as far as I know, the first people to make the link between your accounts were your new friends at WikipediaReview. Yet you don't seem to bear them any ill will, why is that? WjBscribe 10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; thank you for asking. 1) They'd made no pledge not to do so - not a trivial point - shall I repeat that an honorable organization stands by its every word, and that its guarantees to its volunteer contributors are sacred and gold? I have 15+k edits, and a great track record (until it became your fire hydrant) here, none there. As I was upholding policy here, it's only natural that they'd have targeted me there. That WP would have joined them is, in contrast, a betrayal of trust. 2) WR is far less prominent than WP - its main effect is in what it pushes onto WP 3) WR is, with some exceptions (e.g. Slim Virgin) on the whole less hostile - the very moment I began posting there, I was met with charity and understanding, whereas WP is an ongoing flame war, with interpersonal hostility infecting almost every page - count how many times and editors have RWI trolled me there vs. here - and I've seen nothing there which remotely approaches the obscenity and hate-filled racist madness I saw in the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee (well, I did just see one thing about a WP editor being run over by a bus, but it was deleted - meanwhile the stuff about me being punched in the face, among many other things, is still here in our history - we need their moderators over here) 4) these WR friends include several of your IRC friends, the very most aggressive in violating my privacy, who'd joined long before I did. Should they be desysoped?Proabivouac 10:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see WP as an "ongoing flame war" and WR as a forum of "charity and understanding". Oh dear, I think you've rather lost perspective... WjBscribe 11:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're treated with respect over here, as you are, but attacked over there, of course you'll disagree, and vice-versa. i've not been treated well or with respect here as of late, nor was I treated with respect in arbitration; instead I was libeled, and Jews generally atttacked, and am/are still libeled and attacked, at the express invitation of the Committee, on their very own dedicated attack farm pages. This "perspective" you suggest I should have, I lost long ago due to real experience.Proabivouac 11:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such fundamental problems with Wikipedia, I wonder why you're still here. If I had fundamental problems with a website, I would distance myself from it. --Deskana (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check my contribs: I am distancing myself very substantially, and may do so further, perhaps quite memorably.

Would you not agree that a site which for nearly a month tells the public that a living person intends to open a series of holocaust-themed restaurants[4] is an "attack site"? You may think these facts quite unconnected, but I don't think so. The common denominator is that every word on WR (or any other site) we rightly attribute to WR. If User:XFHIGHIO says so-and-so on WR, we rightly say, WR has said so-and-so. But on WP, we deny responsibility for everything except what we personally post under our usernames. "I'm rubber, you're glue…" We'll even maintain it indefinitely, and restore it against attempted blankings, while still saying it's not us.Proabivouac 12:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at a block?

User talk:Haiduc. One week for a snarky edit summary seems a bit extreme. According to established policy, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. This definitely seems punitive to me. I have no doubt that 1==2 is a well meaning Wikipedian ( :-) ), but I do doubt if blocking an established editor who has never been blocked before for one week is helpful to the editor or the project. Thanks. Jeffpw 08:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick favour?

Hi there, ho ho, I believe we have yet never met, never a better time than the present. G'day to you! Well since you are one of the admins active at the moment, I would like to request a small favour; can you please delete my user page; I will recreate it after you delete it. Thanks a lot! Phgao 10:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done by TKD‎. Sorry for troubling you! Phgao 11:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble - sorry I wasn't able to get back to you sooner... WjBscribe 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin question...

I am a member of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, because the majority of my edits are wrestling related articles. Is it possible to become an administrator for this project, and if so, how would I go about doing that? Hiphopchamp 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. As noted here, it is a site-wide user permission, and requires the trust and support of the whole community. There is currently no technical way to grant limited adminship, and no real support from the community to do so either. Daniel 00:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding userpation Niaz <- Niaz_bd

Today I applied for a userpation from Niaz_bd to Niaz. I didn't know that user Niaz had some contributions on WP though those edits have been deleted later. Now the scenario is, Niaz does not have any existing edit other then those deleted contributions on WP and even he didn't create his own userpage/usertalk. He doesn't have any email address as well. In such case will it be possible for me get migrated to that username? I'll be extremely grateful if you kindly advise me what to do next. Kind regards, -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted edits put the request in a slight grey area - though so far similar requests have been performed. There's nothing else you can do really, its entirely in the discretion of the bureaucrat who review the request in a weeks or so's time whether or not to perform the rename. I suspect it will be fine, but ultimately it isn't my decision. WjBscribe 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still thank you very much. Let's hope for the best :-) . Regards, -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man

For cleaning up the comments here. I was half tempted to specially after I saw people who opposed did the exact same thing (ironically that included you). Kwsn(Ni!) 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who've been around a while will know those notes don't mean much, but it would be a shame if new editors were put off commenting - especially given that the discussions doesn't have a very obvious consensus at the moment. WjBscribe 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me though, if it doesn't succeed, in a few months, he'll have like 4-5 people wanting to nom him all at once and he'll easily make it, just the fact he has over 70% is impressive. Kwsn(Ni!) 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Which is why I wonder why he didn't wait another month or two... WjBscribe 12:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just depends, some people just want it right away, some people just hold off. All depends on the person. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random thing on former admins

Hi,

I'm on an extended vacation, but I noticed your recent removal of the "controversial circumstances" marker from several folks on the former admin page. While your rationale -- that b'crats have discretion over such matters -- is entirely correct, I disagree with some of the removals. For former admins who have already failed a new RfA, a b'crat has already determined (sometimes, by stipulation of the candidate), that controversial circumstances exist. Ref 2 implies Ref 1, in other words. Jtkiefer is a special case -- he avoided being banned (by b'crat Taxman) only by agreeing to a future RfA and the disclosing of any name changes, even under the right to vanish before being readminned. Essjay is likewise a special case -- given the circumstances of his resignation (forced by Jimbo, basically), I submit that it is right to make him a "controversial candidate" also. I will now make changes to return the list to a clearer state, marking the cases that have already been determined to be controversial by a b'crat or Jimbo. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think readding with the summary "after talk with WJB" is an odd description when I haven't responded to your comment. My removal was based on the discussion on the talkpage and on the crat noticeboard at the time - particularly comments by Taxman. I concede the point that where those candidates have already tried attempted to regain the tools trhough RfA and have failed, 1 rpob can be safely added. But I'm not so sure that Essjay fits. Its unclear what would have happened if he had refused Jimbo's request and Jimbo did not use his steward access to remove them. I suspect Jimbo would have refered the matter to ArbCom and sanctions would have resulted, though not necessarily the loss of his sysop access. I agree that its very likely the crats would require him to go through RfA, but I think if we start adding that sort of subjective opinion we go back to the sort of prejudgment that was making the list problematic in the first place. So whilst I see the logic with the others, I think the tag should be removed again from his entry as there was neither (a) an ArbCom finding or (b) a bureaucrat finding. WjBscribe 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to an editor's vote

WJBscribe, hello. I noticed you left this response [5] to a RfA vote by Proabivouac. It comes across to me as threatening and harsh. Please explain to me why you see such a response as necessary.--Fahrenheit451 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the exchanges that led up to that response, I can't help thinking that WJBscribe was being fairly measured ... richi 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The response was not in relation to a vote (RfA isn't a vote anyway) it was a comment on his disruptive allegations he made elsewhere on the RfA page which is part of an ongoing pattern of disruption by Proabivouac ever since it was revealed that he had been sanctioned by ArbCom under a previous username and had returned under this one thereby avoiding those ArbCom sanctions. I would advise you to stay clear of the matter if you are not in possession of all the facts. WjBscribe 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WJBscribe, my purpose for asking you was to clarify your response. I thank you for giving me some of the relevant facts. On the RfAs, one does support, oppose, or take a neutral stance, so there is a vote involved. I see nothing particularly disruptive about his comments on Jehochman's RfA page. He does protest what he perceives as some injustices involving unnamed admins. Perhaps that is not the best page for placing that comment and to that extent, it may be inappropriate.--Fahrenheit451 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in my setting out my case against Proabviouac now after warning him to moderate his conduct. Should he decide to disregard my advice and continue as he is now, it will no doubt result in my requesting input from other administrators and the wider community (as I would not act myself). At that point you can feel free to weigh the information I and others provide and to comment as you like. In the meantime, the ball is in Proabivouac's court. WjBscribe 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Understood.--Fahrenheit451 23:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Album cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Album cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template

A template you have created or significantly contributed to, {{user14}}, is the subject of a discussion I have started on the village pump. —Random832 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian's RfA

Hi, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. I really appreciate that you wrote such nice things about me. I hope that I am doing good so far. BTW, I supported your bot's RfA, before I realized (1) that it was you, and (2) that I had not thanked you for supporting me! Bearian 20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Usurpation

Hi Will, I asked to usurp '9' and I see you processed it and we are now awaiting the magic wand being waved. Only problem is - it hasn't. Seems a bit strange to have this incredibly long, drawn out and self-important process that then isn't followed by the very system it is supposed to assist. I'm not whining, but can you suggest someone I could take this issue to so I/m not waiting for another week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Doctrinus (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renames and usurpations can only be performed by bureaucrats. The 7 days is a minimum wait time I'm afraid - after that its a question of when a bureaucrat next visits the page and performs the pending requests. Often bureaucrats have other important commitments within the project and renames can be seen as a low priority area. There isn't much you can do except be patient, sorry - I'm sure someone will get to the requests soon though... WjBscribe 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope you will comment since you already voiced your opinion at ANI.--Alabamaboy 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support.

Hello WJBscribe,

Thanks very much for coming out to and being the second person to support my second RFA. Seeing that the community appears to have your trust, I appreciate that you took the time to vouch for me. That quite likely helped bring a certain level of gravitas that I currently lack.

I hope that I get to work with you, and — in the process — help foster a more positive atmosphere throughout the community. Thanks again. --Aarktica 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK....

OK, so my RfA has been rejected.

So is it because I have a block against me, means I can NEVER be in administration??? I hope it's not the case as if you look at my archived talk, there is a reason they unblocked me. I understand the other reasons but can I ever be an admin? Aflumpire 05:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]