User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 7

Cathar
Hello,

There is an ongoing dispute on the talk page of the Cathar article. Over a year ago I got into a debate with someone from thr Assembly of Good Christians (a neo Gnostic group). I made the mistake of allowing them to discover who I was. They called all my collegues and called my home scaring the daylights out of my wife. I would like to have this mediated. Please advise.

Mr C.

Hi, if you want the dispute mediated, you have two options (1) informal mediation or (2) formal mediation. If you want the former, you should get in touch with the Mediation cabal. If you would like formal mediation you will need to make a request to the Mediation Committee at Requests for mediation, following the requests on that page. All involved parties will need to agree to mediation. You may request a specific mediator if you would like, but ultimately the choice of mediator will depend on the Committee's workload at the time. Do get in touch if you have any questions. WjBscribe 11:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to work with you in mediation. What is my next step? Mr. C.


 * These days I only mediate where a formal request has been made to the Mediation Committee. You need to make a request at Requests for mediation if you would like formal mediation, following the instructions here. Do bear it in mind that its unusual for one of the parties in a dispute to choose a mediator and that the others may have concerns about your making that choice yourself. WjBscribe 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I chose to write you simply because I reviewed the web pages of the other mediators and two were very vague and another was only 19 years old. You offered more information about yourself and what especially stood out was that you are an attorney. I went to the page you suggested and I find it very confusing and not as user friendly as it should be....especially for someone on the go that has not a lot of time to devote to studying such material. In other words...I am just too impatient :) However I will go through the process because peace is needed in this situation. Thank you, Mr. C.


 * What information people choose to reveal about themselves on Wikipedia is up to them. Unfortunately, due to some rather nasty incidents of stalking than crossed over into real life in the past, a lot of administrators are reluctant to divulge much about themselves. I should clarify as it is obviously important to you that although I work as a lawyer and have completed all professional qualifications, I do not have an independent practicing certificate - as I have not yet completed the required period of post-qualification employment. I won't say any more than that as I value a degree of anonymity but don't want you labouring under any misconception.
 * By the way our chair may be young but he has a lot of experience and proven track record in mediating Wikipedia disputes - I am rather new to the committee. He may be quite a few years younger than me but don't judge by age alone. He is very competent.
 * The mediation process can get a little drawn out - both in terms of processing the request and later discussions (people are often online at different times etc.) so patience may be needed... You might want in the meantime to try getting outside opinion from other univolved Wikipedia editors, for example by listing the matter at Requests for comment on articles. Sometimes new perspectives can help, though this seems like a complicated dispute and you may feel that adding participants at this stage would be unhelpful. WjBscribe 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, we proposed the mediation. Mr. C. contacted our community over one year ago with a request. We have a rigorous process of due diligence and quickly discovered he had written to us under false pretences. We advised him of the same, indicated there was nothing more we could do for him in North America, but referred him to our European colleagues. Whereapon Mr. C. provided us with additional information concerning his bona fides including personal contact information. Mr. C. was advised our position had not changed.

In response, Mr. C, under various aliases, made extremely defamatory remarks on Wikipedia and on other websites clearly actionable under American law. Over the course of this period he has variously attempted to retract them, then repost them, apologise for them, then affirm them in a bewildering series of posts and emails. As pacifists, our options are extremely limited; we do not initiate civil law suits. Ordinarily, our recourse is an appeal to good faith mediation in any arena. That is what we have attempted in Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia we are attempting to working through the ecclesiastical overseer of Mr. C. in the hope of a global solution.

Our concern is that with some of the more egregious allegations of Mr. C., there are certain affirmative legal obligations to advise appropriate authorities.At the least, ethical responsibilities. Mr. C. has not done so. Hence, we may find ourselves in the unhappy position of having to advise federal U.S. prosecutors about these allegations in order to have them disproved. In effect, we would have to turn Mr. C. over to the "secular arm of government" for investigation and judgement, something especially odious to us given our faith history during the Inquisition. It is a situation that places us in a real pickle.

We are pleased to co-operate without restriction in any Wikipedia mediation.--AGCWeb 22:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Well obviously anything off-Wiki is beyond my ability to review or help with, and discussion of legal action against other contributors is always best avoided. It seems important to focus on what part of this dispute touches Wikipedia. If you can all work on a Request for Mediation and pin down as precisely as possible what the disputes are between you in relation to the Catharism article (and any other articles), we can see if its something that MedCom can help with... WjBscribe 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, we agree. We have invited Mr. C. to pursue a two-fold approach for dispute resolution; on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia. The onus is on him vis-a-vis Wiki and on us off-Wiki. Our position is simple about the article. One citation does not an article edit make, especially when it posits an entire re-write of history not supported by additional verifiable sources. That is our only purpose in monitoring the article. With few exceptions we have made only minor edits since the inception of the article. Thank you for your help and advice. Cheers (in a non-alcoholic way)--AGCWeb 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.112.115.55
Scribe, could you please give this IP a significant block? I realize they will just change their IP, but eventually I want the User idenfinitely banned. They simply make no edits anymore that don't effort to revert my edits, remove my work, or troll me. This has spread to my FA nomination on for Tompkins Square, they troll my Talk pages, they remove information. It's a shame they don't get a life, or have something else to do with their time, but this has been going on for months. Under their other IPs they have been blocked about four or five times. The behavior is repeat, intentional, and malicious. When they switch IPs, that IP will deserve a significant block, as well. Any help? --David Shankbone 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, Scribe. I've begun compiling a page in my User Space detailing the six months of vandalizing and trolling engaged in by this IP here.  I have warned the IP that I will request they be indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia if I see one more vandalization or trolling incident on pages I edit.  This User has a very long history of bizarre behavior.  I will also share it with their friend in Germany, who may just be under the impression this issue is about me, and not about this person's desire to repeatedly vandalize a website that almost everyone loves and uses.  I really appreciate your help, and the time it takes to deal with these issues.  Dave  --David Shankbone 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Sanchez
I just wanted to let you know that I feel the way you handled the most recent *incident* was appropriate. If I knew how to award barnstars, I'd give you a Refused to Add Gasoline to a Fire barnstar. Wjhonson 02:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for unblocking me and creating a space where I can work. Thanks alot. -- Warfreak 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate to bring this up but...
...Just noticed Jeffery came up for civility on AN/I and the thing was treated with kid gloves. I read some of the comments which were clearly of a high order of nastiness. I see you did indeed comment on this particular AN/I proceeding. How is it that one person is allowed to be incivil while another is not - does one earn the right to be incivil over time? Orderinchaos 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Diffs please :-). My comment was about users removing messages from their userpage and whether this was something they were allowed to do. I have just read the thread again and everything linked to is Jeffrey removing comments from his page without comment. So unless there's something else you wanted to draw my attention to, I'm not sure what inequality you perceive here. I would support any user removing messages from their talkpage on the same basis - that this is confirmation the messages have been read. WjBscribe 04:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (I would produce more but my time here is time not spent on grad school assignments :|) Orderinchaos 05:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm. Well the opinion being expressed was legally absurd so his comment seems quite accurate and only couched in terms of the IP editor's copyright knowledge. I don't think that's in anyway equivalent and I certainly don't see a policy violation there... WjBscribe 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree - once it crosses the line of personal, it becomes a personal attack IMO. Anyway, I have sent you an email - I think this whole drama is in bad need of resolution, and there's just been an opening on that front which I'd like you to consider. Orderinchaos 06:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks once again for bringing it to my notice. The rename function is buggy these days, and sometimes does not give confirmation of the rename in addition to taking sometime to appear in the logs. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for all the edits you made for my username change; I expected that I would have to do all of the cleanup myself. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re: User:71.112.115.55
I am writing to express deepest thanks for helping in this situation. I turned to ArbCom because I was getting desperate, in a "It's him or me" kind of way (I didn't raise that because I didn't want to seem like I was trying to force things to go my way). I have been absolutely puzzled by this trolling; not because of the trolling, per se, but because of its longevity and absolute obsession with me. I suppose it's always unnerving when a person exhibits unstable behavior directed at a person, but this has been odd behavior directed at me since March. Scribe has been a great help, and he has a lot of gratitude from me. But I was feeling the short blocks were not getting the IP to change their behavior, but focus it to WP:GAME policies and guidelines in more and more clever ways. As User:Thatcher131 pointed to a problem I was already encountering when trying to deal with each new IP manifestation of this User, that when I reported it to an admin, "Unfortunately, many admins who watch there will be unaware that this is an ongoing problem, and will react by suggesting that this is a content dispute that should be addressed by talking about it, or that it is not serious enough vandalism to block without first going through the warning levels." Exactly. What I needed I received, which was an unequivocal statement that this User is now banned, and a diff to show that regardless of what this User attempts to do, no matter the clever manner or gaming of policies and guidelines that make their trolling and vandalization not apparent, I can point to a conclusive judgment on them. This happened to day, when an admin e-mailed me about my reverting the IP's comments on my FA candidacy for Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (what the IP used as an example of my vandalizing on their talk page). This well-meaning admin wrote in an e-mail that my removal of this IP criticizing me and my "lies" as "Consider the act that the IP points to as vandalism by you. I hate to say it, but it looks like .... vandalism by you." I kept coming across this, and it was very frustrating, which is why I took so much time to reconstruct their relentless behavior in one location. So, I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, for your help and understanding. This unbalanced behavior has been odd to witness, and to have myself be the focal point of it. It was also becoming too time-consuming and too frustrating when I have a lot of other things I want to contribute and work on with the website. I am also flattered by the admin suggestion; unfortunately, I don't think I have the best temperment for such a position (I don't know how you guys do it) and I relish focusing on using my creativity to improve the site. But I also have an artistic temperment. That said, Wikipedia's guidelines of behavior have not only improved my editing and relating on this website, but also in my own life. I find myself telling other people to "assume good faith" often ("Don't assume he didn't call you because he is playing games with you, assume good faith--maybe he's just really busy, or maybe someone died...you never know.") That's Wikipedia. Dave --David Shankbone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

SIPphone
You closed it a bit too quickly after the last comment! I was about to reply with the following, but I got the edit conflict message (you had closed it):
 * That's probably because they launched the Gizmo5 at the end of January this year.  -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add your comment. I suggest this now be taken to the article's talkpage. A merge may be a good idea but I'm not convinced Gizmo5 is the best article. WjBscribe 06:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Already started the suggestion, thanks! -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re your message
Hi WJBscribe. Thank you for your well thought out and impassioned message about Armedblowish and proxies, urging me to consider supporting. Unfortunately, you may have missed support vote #23, made almost five hours ago! :-p Neil   ╦  21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks
But isn't that only if the IP is soft-blocked? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That strikes me as a bit of loophole, I must say. I can't agree with what you're doing here, because what you're saying is that all admins should now be allowed to edit from open proxies. Yes, I know that they can already, but we would be endorsing it. We may as well get rid of RfAs entirely and just give everyone the tools. And why should admins be allowed to and not regular editors? That'll be the next issue.
 * Also, what's the issue of this being a problem for him for two years? Why two years? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Will, I wish you'd look again at what you're doing here. The nominee believes that someone could obtain his IP address from the Wikimedia Foundation, and armed with it, could break into his ISP's servers and obtain his bill!
 * (a) How would they get the IP from the Foundation, (b) how would they break into his ISP's network, and (c) who on earth would want to?


 * It isn't rational. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you say which arbitrators and checkusers you discussed this with, please, because it's irresponsible, and I think the community has a right to know who's endorsing it. Added to which he's effectively accusing the checkusers of dishonesty. It's not a one-off, Will. We don't have special rules for Armedblowfish. If it applies to him, it applies to everyone, because why should he be the only one who's given adminship so he can edit in secret? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, no objections doesn't mean they agreed; they may not even have noticed the question. You say you don't know why he needs to do this, but I think you need to find out. It may be a great reason, or it may lead you to think he's completely irrational; if the latter, surely that makes a difference as to whether you should have nominated him. And please take the point that this is endorsing open-proxy editing, which means everyone will have to be allowed to do it. We can't argue for exceptions, unless it's truly something unusual that Jimbo, the Foundation, or the ArbCom has been told about. We can't do it because AFB is paranoid. Let's face it, if anyone should be paranoid it's me, given that I'm almost the sole focus on an attack site, but this strikes me as security taken to absurd lengths. If he's that nervous about his privacy, he really shouldn't be editing. SlimVirgin (talk)  03:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Not sure if this is relevant to this issue (since I can barely understand any of this discussion), but thought you may be interested in this recent comment, if you have not seen it already. FNMF 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow - what an endorsement! That's interesting in light of some of the negative comments being made today - A l is o n  ☺ 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA question
Thank you for your question on my RfA. I have answered your question and hopefully cleared up my viewpoints regarding WP:BITE. I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on my views, and again, thank you for your question allowing me the opportunity to do so.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 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 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Usurpations
Oh thank god for that. Sorry about the deletion request, it wasn't trolling, they are never about to come back for the accounts anyway. I have another idea, why can't old indefblocked vandal accounts (without bans or sockpuppetry) be re-used. Because really the old accounts are a waste of space :). 81.151.27.55 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. As to the old vandal accounts, you may be surprised to know that usurpations were seen as pretty controversial even in the limited sense they are allowed now. It took a lot of discussion just to agree that old unused requests should be usurped as a matter of routine. My personal opinion is that we should also be willing to usurp accounts that have made no contribution to the encycopedia - just to sandboxes, their userpage or unhelpful edits that were reverted. Which would cover your old vandal accounts (without bans or sockpuppetry). The problem if they we indefblocked is that block logs wouldn't move with the renaming - so the account that took it over would have an old indefblock in their block log. Some bureaucrats may be willing to perform more controversial usurpations as an exercise of their discretion. The page reflects what the community has agreed can be done routinely so expanding it would need community input into the policy again. WjBscribe 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaah
Must you do that while I'm in the middle of trying to review them? – Steel 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship and for your offer of assistance on my talk page. I'll be sure to take advantage of it if the need arises. :) If I can ever be of help to you in any matter, please do let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

RE:Your comment in my RfA
It's a bit after the fact now that I've withdrawn, but I would like you to know that the actual diff you opposed me based on was me reverting a person butchering the grammar. The original caption was added by User:Deadkid dk, not me.

When the user I'd reverted then switched it to a grammatical version of the same phrase I didn't change it. --tjstrf talk 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My problem was that all I saw was quibbling over the caption when the image should have been removed. I believe any editor should have seen that such an image of Wikipe-tan was inappropriate both for Lolicon and Wikipe-tan in that it links a Wikipedia symbol to a sexualised picture of someone under age. Such images are highly damaging to Wikipedia to reputation. I'm surprised to hear that you have chosen to withdraw however - your RfA was still clearly over the promotion threshhold and other editors may have thought I was overrreacting. WjBscribe 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I withdrew because I didn't wish to have my Request get converted into a trial over a single incident that was unfortunate enough to occur during the course of my RfA. I've gotten along fine without the admin bit for two years, waiting another month or two won't hurt anything.
 * As for the issue of mildly suggestive art of Wikipe-tan damaging Wikipedia's image, I'll just assume you aren't aware of User:Kasuga's other website. --tjstrf talk 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Bad image list
This listing is specifically for images used for vandalism, and one of the major concerns about its introduction was exactly this use of it to censor images with which one disagrees. If these images truly have no legitimate use, have them deleted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

LoliWikipetan(2).jpg
I only see this move as one of paranoia and an attempt to censor Wikipedia. As Centrx stated above, the list is used for protecting images used in vandalism. Your use of it to put on any image you dislike is out-of-line with its intention. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An attempt to remove both images from Commons failed. I assume you will try to make sure it comes up again and again until you get your way?  --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested to see any ArbCom input on this matter. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

KFRC (AM) & KMVQ-FM unmerge
Per discussion at Talk:KFRC (AM), I have split the article into KFRC (AM) and KMVQ-FM by moving KMVQ-FM (formerly KFRC) to KFRC (AM) and recreating KMVQ-FM from the last revision of KMVQ before the hist-merge. Please move these historical edits from KFRC (AM) to KMVQ-FM as per Talk:KFRC (AM). Note that the edits are mostly consecutive, with the exception of the two edits 22:39, 17 May 2007 67.170.184.73 and 01:16, 27 May 2007 WJBscribe, both of which should should remain on KFRC (AM). Thank you. DHowell 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Let me know if I got anything wrong or if anything else needs doing. Thanks for working out what belongs where. WjBscribe 04:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

boo!
Never disappeared entirely, but took a giant step back for a bit. I won't be participating as much as before, but will be doing some editing. Glad to see you have settled nicely into your role as admin. Jeffpw 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

changing name / vanishing
"Note. Yes, renaming will change your name in page histories and The Sunshine Man is mistaken above - you may request a renaming to a generic names as part of your right to vanish. This has no effect on the GNU FDL. WjBscribe 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"
 * Hi, finnaly! how may i vanish? as admin could you do it for me? thanks!
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username


 * You can be renamed to anything you want (except for names against our username policy) as part of your right to vanish. I'm afraid it isn't something I can do as an admin - only bureaucrats can rename users. It should be done for you next time a bureaucrat reviews the current rename requests. WjBscribe 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for the info :) (talk over)  the user

Question
What happends if a person keeps changing their IP and vandalizing Wikipedia?--81.243.231.244 17:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends there are various things one could do:
 * Keep reverting them and blocking each IP until they get bored
 * Semi protect the pages they are targeting so they can't edit them but registered users can
 * Range block all the IPs they might use
 * Report the matter to the Internet Service Provider that owns the IPs
 * Different admins will probably favour different solutions in different circumstances. WjBscribe 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't block a range of IP's block other users who might use the same ISP?--Era92 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It would. The disadvantage would be a lot of collateral damage to other users - though they could email unblock-en-l and request an account. It can a way of making an ISP take the problem more seriously if they receive numerous complaints from their users that they can't edit Wikipedia due to vandalism. WjBscribe 17:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons
I saw your an admin on Commons. Are there scripts like TW for use on commons? Thanks! ~ Wi ki  her mit  (HermesBot) 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not as far as I know. There's a lot less that needs scripts on Commons - very little vandalism etc. You could add popups to your monobook.js there as you would here. But as far as I know tagging things for deletion has to be done the old fashioned way. You could check at the Commons Village pump in case there's is a script and I just haven't heard of it. WjBscribe 00:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 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 03:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
In case you haven't realized we are trying to have a discussion. It's not helpful to change policy toward on extreme for a debated policy, and you should well know that. Just because a couple of editors disapproving changes comes along it doesn't change the fact that there was overwhelming support for policy change, so show some respect and achieve consensus before altering the guidelines toward your own preferences. Richard001 11:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The onus is on those who wish to change the present approach to persuade. In the meantime, the status quo stands and the page should reflect that. WjBscribe 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 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 09:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Point of Information.
Hi,

Is Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 11 considered part of the backlog for RfDs? No action appears to have been taken there. --Aarktica 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * RfD can be closed after 7 days. The page for each day is then delisted from WP:RFD when all the RfDs on it are closed. I usually end up closing a large proportion but have been away for a bit. I'll take a look. WjBscribe 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

MPFAP
Hi! There's a new proposal here and here. I'd be grateful if you could take a look at it, and comment. Ta, DrKiernan 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just back from a break (and away again for most of tomorrow). I have a few things to catch up on but will take a look ASAP. WjBscribe 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA/10,000
Thanks for that. You were spot-on...  Daniel  00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Always is... (my 2¢) ~   Wi ki  her mit  01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much - always good to know what one is doing gets noticed :-). WjBscribe 11:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

usurp request
Re, thanks for the note. I was aware that the log events either weren't created or were lost for old names; I was just trying to save someone else the time it takes to check that the name exists. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would value your opinion
Basically this is my last fling before I quit Wikipedia. I was accused of being a sockpuppet of someone who was already banned and also of being another user Coldmachine.

It's a long story but I am not Emnx or Coldmachine. The ban was implemented on the basis of a Checkuser which returned a 'likely' result and the fact I opened my account approx. 30mins before Coldmachine resurrected an AFD which I later became involved in. I have provided a comprehensive edit history comparing my account with that of Coldmachine's where we are both editing many different articles at the same time but the discussion with an admin has ended with 'appeal denied'.

I have written to you because you opposed this self-nominated admin on the grounds you thought it would result in an overzealous use of powers. Two other admins also opposed the nomination but both have since quit Wikipedia.

You can see a good summary from my perspective on User_talk:86.131.33.92 or on Coldmachine's talk page.

I would ask you to have a look and perhaps leave a message on User_talk:86.131.33.92.

I know I am banned but I am not editing articles. I am just trying to clear my name. When I do edit anything I sign as below.

Thanks


 * Arthana (--86.131.37.11 22:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I have had a brief look into this issue. I confess that detailed sockpuppetry investigations are not something with which I have much involvement. As I see it your case has now been looked at by 3 different administrators (with no connection to each other) who have all come to the same conclusion: MaxSem, Akhilleus and Chaser. Whatever concerns I may have had about Chaser at the time of his RfA, to my knowledge he has been an exemplary admin and I have always believed my fears have proved unfounded. It looks like you have had a fair hearing. I will look into this a little bit more and talk to some of the people involved, but there really isn't much I can do - this looks like a judgment call and I'm not well placed to decide the wrong one was made. You can of course ask Akhilleus (who blocked your account) to review that decision and have the right to appeal your block to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Sorry I can't be of more help, WjBscribe 23:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting article unprotection
Hi, the article Kevin Harper has been protected for 2 months now, during this time there have been only 2 edits, neither of which were vandalism, so I think it is time this was unprotected. Thanks. Dave101 →talk  20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a little reluctant to unprotect the article given the highly unpleasant nature of the vandalism that resulted in the protection. The article doesn't seem to be watched by many people. That being said, I can't justify protecting it forever - so lets give unprotection a go... WjBscribe 23:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

CUU email
I was going to look for you to ask about sending emails for CUU, but you found me first. Thanks for the information. By the way, do you feel that my help is needed there? I picked it up when I saw you went on wikibreak, but I'll drop it again if you think there is enough manpower there. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For this one. I'm still finding my feet :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich
You shouldn't have nominated the redirect at WikiProject Munich for deletion. To say that my redirect is not "useful or helpful" is very incorrect. In fact it's the complete opposite. Kingjeff 14:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cross namespace redirects are a bad idea. Content in the Wikipedia: namespace is for people writing the encyclopedia. Being redirected to it is confusing for those trying to actually use the encylopedia. If you need a shortcut to the Wikiproject, WP:Munich would be totally acceptable (as it uses the pseudo WP: namespace) and much shorter... WjBscribe 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to say that you made a mistake with my redirect. Kingjeff 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not make a mistake, your choice of redirect is not acceptable (I propose you use WP:Munich instead). By the way, you need to notify the administrator who closed the RfD discussion of the deletion review (After Midnight) not me - I just deleted the reposted redirect. WjBscribe 15:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it confusing when it redirects to the WikiProject. Your comment is almost a personal attack because you're making out that users are stupid. Kingjeff 15:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh calm down, no one is attacking anyone. Your redirect was a bad idea and its been deleted. Move on. WjBscribe 15:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Being redirected to it is confusing for those trying to actually use the encylopedia." This very much looks like an attack on intelligence. I refuse to move on. It was a great idea and very user friendly. Why do you insist on interfering with so many WikiProjects that you aren't involved in? Kingjeff 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've said all I intend to say - I don't plan on disussing the matter further with you. WjBscribe 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this your way of saying I'm right? Kingjeff 15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope - I think you'll find the community has overwhelming agreed with me - at 2 RfDs and now at DRV. Its just that I see no point discussing this further with you and I am actually quite busy at the moment... WjBscribe 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the community has overwhelming agree with you. The fact that you got that many deleted means that I have the support. Kingjeff 15:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wha?
I'm surprised by the edit summary. CSS colors, if they consist of multiple repeating values (like CCCCFF, or 336699) can be shortened down (in this case, CCF and 369). What browser are you using that it caused a noticeable change in appearance? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing username
Good evening WJB, I was just wondering why you have reduced and almost stopped your helping out at WP:CHU, I try my best with others but its a mess without you, anyway I was just wondering why you're not around there much anymore. All the best.  Th e Su nshi ne M an  18:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not? I was on a wikibreak from the 14th pretty much until the 21st. But I have checked through all the requests on that page since getting back - I've cleared requests the Bot failed to archive, fixed a template, commented on a request, and another request, corrected the clerk comment on this request and answered this user's question. I've also been around on WP:CHU/U and I've posted to the Bureaucrats Noticeboard begging them to do some renames. I kinda thought I was doing a good job on catching up with things... WjBscribe 18:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why KolibriOS deleted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KolibriOS I'm curious why you deleted article about world's first asm OS with NTFS support.


 * Because that was the outcome of the discussion? If you can supply links to multiple reliable and independent sources about KolibriOS that confirm this is a notable topic for an encyclopedia to cover the matter could be revisited. WjBscribe 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Ahhh, thank you very much for the barnstar. It means a lot to me. And yes, it's been some tough battling lately! I've been called some names that I've never been called before (which is saying something, considering that I manage online games, heh). So, it's nice to be recognized, thank you very much! :) --Elonka 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I am not really disheartened by my Rfa. I would of liked to be able to help out with delete articles in CAT:CSD, blocking vandals at AIV, blocking people at UAA, and blocking bad users who I run into but it is not the end of the world that I can not help out with that kind of stuff. I know that both Martinp23 and Husond want to nominate me and I have told them to wait off until October. I will have it in late October. I hope that by then people will realise that I do not have a tendency to edit war like some currently think. Have a nice week and God bless:)--†Sir James Paul† 07:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy
As per the policy you cite, the following is never acceptable:  Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

Singling me out then and not Mr. Sanchez is unfair and hypocritical, pure and simple. Perhaps I would take you more seriously if you applied the policies in an equitable manner. You have not. Aatombomb 04:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he has been very clearly over the line numerous times. You just seem to have a hard-on for me. Aatombomb 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Aatombomb 05:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Renames
No problem. I just had to get into them so I had some idea what I was doing. Thank you and the other "clerks" for your hard work in pre-vetting these. It made it infinitely easier. Cheers, Cecropia 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

adminship
Hi WJBscribe, sorry about not responding earlier. I had seen the "You have new messages (diff)" bar, and I clicked on the "diff", and someone else had written after you, so I only noticed the latter message and not yours.

I'm honoured that you think highly enough of me to consider nominating me for administrator. I feel however that I must decline, because I would rather not have to put up with the stress and abuse that many admins get. While I don't believe that I would act rashly in such a position (i.e. no unwarranted blocks, deletions, or page protects), I also think that I'd be happier without the added responsibilities of an admin and all that they entail, and to be quite honest, I don't feel qualified. I'm sorry for disappointing you, and I do appreciate you thinking of me, but I think I really am better off being just a regular editor and contributor. Thank you all the same. -- Kyok o  14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Kyok o  14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for those thoughtful comments. I have no concerns about the candidate's trustworthiness, which is why I mentioned that a direct application for checkuser might be preferable. But in my estimation there are two aspects to the job of a bureaucrat: a) rather trivial work using specialized tools (sysopping, etc.), and b) handling the firestorms that sometimes erupt around those tools in a sensible and sensitive way. It's this last part that troubles me with regard to the current RfB. An awful lot of bad blood can be generated by RfA disputes, and the battles which emerge around controversial RfAs frequently involve key members of the community on both sides. In this context, the damage which can potentially be done by a bureaucrat with poor political skills is enormous and (because it has nothing to do with software features) not readily reversible. Having seen just how badly our current bureaucrats handled the most recent fiasco, perhaps I should be more forgiving; but really, that just increases my feeling that extraordinarily sound (and documented) social/political judgment must be a key prerequisite for cratship. If there were a bureaucrat shortage, I might feel differently; but as far as I'm aware there isn't one at present; hence my reluctance to support. Cheers, -- Visviva 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate your message _ I have emailed a response - maybe later - ( I was just talkng on the weekend with an in law the improbability of my ever being able to live in london (I am an addicted book buyer collector)) it needs following up on a few issues - thanks again - much appreciated amidst the damned unbirthday messages SatuSuro 01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note
It might be difficult to argue that all references to the real name should go, given that he outed himself and that it was published so widely. On the other hand, as you say, the name makes no difference to the issue, and the person is semi-notable. I'll certainly back you up if you want to initiate a discussion about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 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 08:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Award
Thank you for the Barnstar. It truly is much appreciated.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy
Hi WJB. I wondered if you would consider taking on the attachment therapy mediation. There are only 4 of you listed as active. Daniel has recused himself, KillerChihuahua is not in good health and Demon is the chair! Fainites 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to be able to edit much for the next few days. If it isn't taken by Fri when I should be back to editing at my usual rate, I will have a look and see if its a mediation I can take on. We may have some who are presently on the Emeriti list back soon so don't panic - it has been waiting a while and we're aware of that. WjBscribe 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just so long as I know we're not forgotten :) Fainites 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since one of the group that is working to present its POV, User:FatherTree (see diff: []) continues to knowingly make false accusations of my being a sockpuppet, I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time? DPeterson talk 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an ever recurring allegation, as are the allegations of DPetersons 'side' that most if not all of us on the other 'side' are meat puppets. Indeed allegations around this latter point were put on the mediation referral page itself but removed by Daniel. Nevertheless the committee accepted it for mediation and all involved parties have signed up for mediation. Please do not be persuaded into delaying mediation. The issues that need to be mediated will only fester. Fainites 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The delay in mediation is to my knowledge solely due to the committee being overstretched. These issues would need to be discussed at the outset - obviously its highly important for everyone in the mediation process to try and assume good faith of others they disagree with. Allegations are generally unhelpful. That being said if any party now feels unable to participate in the process, they can indicate their withdrawal (at which point the case would have to be closed). WjBscribe 11:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it would be specious of anybody to withdraw now in order to close down mediation when all of these allegations have been repeatedly made before but we'll see what happens by Friday. Fainites 11:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree allegations are unhelpful. I think the mediator will need to address FatherTrees knowingly making false accusations and this is disruptive to the process. Another member of that group has a history of being sanctioned for disruptive behavior on Wiki. We will need a very good mediator to keep them focused on the issues. DPeterson talk 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Any advance WJB? Fainites 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see here, we now are not only short staffed but also in the process of appointing a new chair to replace ^demon. I'm still confident we'll have a few more active mediators soon, but you're going to have to bear with us a little longer... WjBscribe 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Righty ho. Fainites 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know WJBScribe that Maypole has been blocked by FT2 as a reincarnation of a well-known long term abuser. I trust that the total removal of one party in this way will not prevent mediation. Fainites 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Talk:Matt Sanchez
Would it be possible to go through and edit out the incessant personal attacks by Sanchez and Pwok on this page? Between their sniping at each other and other editors, the page looks like something out of usenet rather than Wikipedia. Pwok's "departure" from Wikipedia seems to be only in connection to his username, as he has edited the page half a dozen times in the past day or so, all with attacks (personal and failure to AGF) upon you, Elonka, Sanchez, me and Wikipedia in general. I have already given Sanchez a warning about civility (as he actually seems to modify his behavior appropriately after a warning, if only for brief periods). Cleaning up the current page (at least) might ratchet down the hostility a bit and allow us to actually collaborate and improve the article. Horologium t-c 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I completely missed this post. I see in the end you decided to archive the page - prob a good idea. People can always fish out threads they feel need to continue being discussed. I'll take a look at the state of thinks. Thanks for persevering with things. WjBscribe 11:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks for the notice. I'll go ahead and let them grab it. ~  Wi ki  her mit  15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the warm welcome! MAJ5 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

sock puppets of Vox Humana 8'
Suspected sock puppets/Vox Humana 8'. Andy Mabbett 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen it. I don't see 4 reverts though. If I'm missing something, set them out as below and I'll look. WjBscribe 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:


 * He hasn't been reported for 3RR (this time); he's been reported for his repeated sock-puppetry. Andy Mabbett 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But he wasn't using a sockpuppet covertly - everyone knows the account User:EccentricRichard is him. That'd be like reporting me for using User:WJBaway. Unless he used the sock to violate policy, there's no reason why he should be blocked. Seraphimblade closed the sock report with "Clear use of a sock to violate 3RR" - unless that happened, the unblock by Alison seems valid. WjBscribe 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:EccentricRichard (which was blocked for a separate case of sock-puppetry on 20 June) was not one of the three accounts he was using on 21 June. Andy Mabbett 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use the "show preview" button - I don't like getting edit conflicts when responding on my own talkpage. Ah yes, that was the 20th. What is your basis for claiming the other two accounts are him? WjBscribe 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * His admission of that fact. Andy Mabbett 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Link? WjBscribe 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the above SP report. Andy Mabbett 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting a straight answer from you seems pretty difficult - where does he say he used those accounts to edit your userpage. I see that he says he uses other accounts to revert vandalism (something WP:SOCK says is OK) but I can't see where he says either (1) User:Vox AntiVandal 1.0 and User:AntiVandal001 are his or (2) that he edited your userpage. Surely those accounts are more likely to be sockpuppets of User:Leonig Mig given the content that was removed... WjBscribe 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I mistakenly assumed that you would have read the SP report, and the links cited in it. The relevant part is:


 * "See also : I have been using socks to fight vandalism"


 * Andy Mabbett 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the report and the links- they don't include the info I asked for. The link you supply is not an admission that he used those particular accounts or that he edited your userpage - that's the bit I'm having trouble with. In particular the edit seems a very odd one to make unless your are User:Leonig Mig. How do make the leap from his saying he uses other accounts to fight vandalism to the fact that he used those particular accounts? WjBscribe 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, I am willing to indicate to User:Vox Humana 8' that he is not to edit you userpage again in any circumstances and that he will blocked should he do so. Is that an acceptable outcome? WjBscribe 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that the usual response to serial sock-puppeteers? Andy Mabbett 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are clearly unhappy so I am offering you some action, but you have yet to convince me that something blockable has been done by User:Vox Humana 8'... WjBscribe 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of whatever Andy thinks, I would be glad if you would issue such an indication to User:Vox Humana 8', not least in light of, his fourth edit after being unblocked by Alison. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Yes- that's pretty unimpressive... I've left a warning. WjBscribe 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Oh dear. VH appears to think he is judge, jury and executioner. this morning at 08:52, 28 June 2007. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Blocked again and declined. He'll have to sit this one out. WJB - Vox just had to go at Andy's userpage again having been warned by both of us. I blocked him & have to say, I'm really annoyed for his having abused my trust - A l is o n  ☺ 09:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
The bald get no respect. Thanks for reverting. --David Shankbone 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case
The block was not for sock puppetry which occurred in September 2006, the editor was already blocked for that. The puppetmaster recently again used a sock to violate 3RR, less than a week ago. Alison's already unblocked, and I certainly will not reverse her, but I would assert that a block for misbehavior that recent is indeed valid. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC
What IRC channel are you usually on, and at what times? ~  Wi ki  her mit  03:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm usually in #wikipedia-en-admins, #wikipedia-mediation and #wikimedia-commons (I realise the first two aren't much use to you but anyone can join #wikimedia-commons). I probably should be a bit more available thinking about it so I will make an effort to also be in #wikipedia-en. No very regular times but you're prob most likely find me between 12:00 and 00:00 UTC (it'll be a few hours before I'm on IRC today though). WjBscribe 10:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

STV
Shouldn't you have discussed moving/renaming Single transferable vote? After all, it isn't a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalised...--Red Deathy 08:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't move it. The article was already at Single Transferable Vote - it had been cut and pasted from Single transferable vote (rather than being moved) back in 2005 - so the page history was in 2 places. All I did was to merge the two histories at its present location (Single Transferable Vote). If the article should be named Single transferable vote it can now be moved using the standard process (at least all its revisions are now in one place!). WjBscribe 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Body photography
I just finished last night a project I had planned for awhile: I photographed every inch of my friend Ernesto's body. I only have one up so far, on Armpit. I'm wondering how controversial it will be to introduce some of them to pages such as Taint (slang). --David Shankbone 12:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it there is nothing controversial about illustrating anatomy. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. We are not it seems going to include highly explicit images but as far as I am aware the only things that have been expressly found inappropriate (i.e. by Jimbo Wales) have been: a photograph of autofellatio, Goatse.cx and child pornography. I don't think images of anatomy are in the same league. The only questions are whether an image enhances the reader's understanding of the subject of the article - in most cases the answer should be yes - and whether it is the best illustration we have. For Taint (slang) the is a competing images (with labels) in the form of Image:Male perineum.jpg. I think this should be treated like any other content - feel free to be bold and add images where you think they will enhance the articles and join in any discussions to reach a consensus if other editors disagree with the addition. WjBscribe 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

hi
<div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

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. Just being friendly, have a nice day. Francisco Tevez 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dx-06.jpg
You asked user:Zenlax about this picture and how he created it since it's the same guy twice in the picture. I don't know where he got it from or what, but that's not the same guy, it's Triple H in the foreground and Shawn Michaels with his back turned in the background - they're dressed alike but the tattoo on Shawn Michaels raised arm and the hair is a giveaway if you're familiar with both wrestlers. Just FYI MPJ-DK 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's helpful, thanks. I'm still concerned that it isn't a user created image. WjBscribe 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recreation after AfD with a better? version of the article
Greetings! I speedily deleted an article created at Longview Baptist Temple since it was substantially similar to the version that went through AfD. The creator of the new article and I discussed, and he's been working on a new version at User:BURNyA/Longview Baptist Temple.

I think it's now substantially different enough, and brings in at least two sources that seem reliable enough to support the main assertions. However, there's still that AfD hanging out there. My hunch is that if it goes back to mainspace, it will get speedied again for G4. Should I/he send it to deletion review now, or wait for that next speedy to happen so that deletion can be overturned? The article's not such a clearcut new version that I think it can stand alone; I just can't decide what the venue is to gauge what the pool of editors think about it. What do you think is the next step for this article? Thank you, —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any need for a deletion review - your judgment that is substantially different will do. You will need to undelete the previous revisions anyway if the current article is based on those (to ensure compliance with GFDL). I suggest you put in the undelete summary that the new version is substantially different form the old one and that if its to be deleled, it needs a fresh AfD. A note on the talkpage to that effect as well can't hurt. WjBscribe 23:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I wanted to let you know I answered your question on Changing username. Thanks NOVO-REI 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If you enjoy Latin American history, just check out my future contribs!  Its been my pleasure to talk with you!NOVO-REI 16:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Erection
The photo I put up replaced a poorer quality photo. The Chihuahua page has about four or five Chihuahuas. The Oprah page has four Oprahs. The Eyes page has about 16 pairs of eyes. I think it's questionable that just because it's an erection, there needs to be far fewer photos. My photo is a pretty good erection (it's not me, of course). We could crop some of the spread-eagle-ness out of it? --David Shankbone 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this was a professional male model. It was completely a professional session; Wikipedia is lucky to have these.  --David Shankbone 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the spread-eagle-ness from the photo. I think it makes it more acceptable. Anus is out as well. --David Shankbone 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But,, that shot is now gone forever from Wikimedia. Now that the anus is axed, only I have it on my own computer...  I have more uploading to do with this session.  I'm currently trying to find a woman similarly, uh, exhibitionist for a shoot.  --David Shankbone 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "My photo is a pretty good erection" - a bit juvenile, perhaps, but I laughed out loud when I read that. Define "pretty good erection" :-D - A l is o n  ☺ 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I live to give :) --David Shankbone 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Actually, in seriousness, I've been an admirer of your photos for some time now. Your contributions to LGBT articles are worth their weight in gold. I particularly like the recent Dyke-on-a-bike one. Respect! - A l is o n  ☺ 04:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers for the revert on my talk page and for blocking that IP. I have to say, that was the funniest piece of vandalism that I can remember been made to my talk page. :-) Best regards. Will (aka Wimt ) 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! ... disco spinster   talk  00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Custerwest
Hey, I reported this user to the vandal page because of removing the 3RR violation report that I made. That is absolutely blatant vandalism. Can you do something about this? Please? I've been pleading for help with this so that i don't edit war, or violate 3RR myself, but noone is helping. Murderbike 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of legitimate complaints on WP:AIV
I'm sorry I can't help it if has made spurious vandalism complaints at AIV, including deleting my legitimate complaint about his/her personal attacks on another user, & also deleting yet another user's report at WP:3RR for violating that rule, which was also reported at WP:AIV. But rather than actually looking to see if any of those complaints were valid, you simply deleted them all here.

Is this place even worth my time anymore? I guess I'll use my vacation to figure that out....

Meantime, you might want to take a look at WP:ANI for a full account of what just went down. --Yksin 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I did look into it. As I see it there are discussions in two appropriate places where the matter can be looked into in appropriate depth. AIV is for unabiguous vandalism of simple nature, not matters that require lengthier investigation. I removed the content because it was better discussed elsewhere, not because I thought the complaint was not legitimate. AIV needs to stay unblocked for a fast turnaround on simple vandalism. WjBscribe 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so my original straightforward report of Custerwest making another personal attack after final warning, and after having deleted warnings from his/her talk page, is not straightforward enough for AIV? --Yksin 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC) -- my original report here

I am trying to review the original 3RR report (if I can resurrect it from the page history) and work from their forwards. Having alerts to new messages on this page will only slow me down. Give me some time to look over the evidence. WjBscribe 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone else has now block for the 3RR breach and I have declined the unblock request and warned about personal attacks. I still think this was properly dealt with as a content dispute and not simple vandalism (and as such was not a suitable matter for WP:AIV). The best thing would have been to restore the 3RR report so that it could have been reviewed and raised the matter at WP:ANI. AIV cannot deal with anything too complicated - it is a bot assisted board for reporting simple blatant vandalism. WjBscribe 01:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I didn't actually know that Murderbike was making a 3RR report until after I had already made my AIV report based on Custerwest's personal attack on HanzoHattori, about which I had warned him/her before. Given his/her persistent attitudes, which I see you came up somewhat against on his/her talk page, it's a good chance admins will be seeing more of this user. Can't say I appreciate HanzoHattori's continued efforts to bait CW on CW's talk page though -- I don't know if that amounts to personal attacks or not. I asked Hanzo to stop, but s/he did it again after that. [sigh]... Okay, well, off to vacation.  Thanks again for looking further into it. --Yksin 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The important thing is that its sorted for now. I've added further encouragement to HanzoHattori to stop baiting Custerwest - its rather verging on trolling. Enjoy your vacation - sounds like you could use one :-) ... WjBscribe 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No thank you
Administrators are caretakers. I write articles, and don't always concern myself with the day-to-day runnings of the site. Plus power corrupts. Alientraveller 09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

request
Hi WJBscribe, can you look my request here ? thanks a lot --dario vet (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked troll
Does this mean that the user will never be able to edit Wikipedia again? If so, wouldn't a permanent block on the troll account and a brief block on his IP be more appropriate?  Sala Skan  18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If we block a user, that doesn't mean the IP is blocked for the same period. Unless disabled, an "autoblock" results. That means that the IP is blocked for a while (a day or two in practice) - the restriction on account creation lasts about the same time. Autoblock and account creation blocks are lifted fairly routinely where this causes hardship to other users. Those prevented from creating accounts can also email <unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org> and request that accounts be created for them. I think that effectively does what you were suggesting? WjBscribe 02:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I didn't know that autoblock expired after two days.  Sala Skan  10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)