User talk:WJBscribe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:21, 1 June 2007 editOrderinchaos (talk \| contribs)Administrators70,076 edits →Block on Thewinchester: clarify← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:22, 1 June 2007 edit undoWJBscribe (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users40,293 edits →Block on Thewinchester: Archive thread - no point in re-treading old groundNext edit →
Line 132:		Line 132:

	Oh man, is that next week already? Sorry, I'm afraid I won't be able to make it. ] 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)		Oh man, is that next week already? Sorry, I'm afraid I won't be able to make it. ] 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Block on Thewinchester ==

	Based on the fact this user had no previous warnings and is generally a cooperative and hardworking user on a range of fronts (including vandal fighting) I'd appreciate if you reconsider this block and consider an AGF-2 instead. ] 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Actually I think a block is appropriate here. The user clearly needs to take some time to cool down. He's not a newbie and is well aware of our policy - AGF, CIV, NPA. He decided to trample right across those and make an outrageous post on Jeffrey O. Gustafson's talkpage. I don't like seeing that sort of thing directed towards hardworking contributors - we're all volunteers here and shouldn't have to put up with it. I feel my response was proportionate and needed to prevent continuing behaviour from someone who had clearly lost perspective. Its not that lengthy a block, and Thewinchester would do well to reflect for a bit. I will give full consideration to an unblock request - if he is accepts his conduct was wrong and agrees to make amends. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:: Then I would suggest you have a look on ] as there is someone far more deserving of this kind of administrative action (and you'd even have the backup of a past 1 year arbcom ban, civility parole and revert parole) on that page - and clearly unrepentant, too. ] 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::I may have the wrong glasses on :-) but I'm not seeing anything that bads in edits to that page in the last few days. Are there any diffs in particular I should be looking at? <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	I think this block is unwarranted, while thewinchesters comment were heat and uncivil the language used is not the most offensive on that talk page "Oh, for fucks sake..." heading at the top of the page is a case in point. Given this, the editor should have been warned and asked to reconsider and withdraw the comment before blocking. ] clearly states that cool down block shouldnot be used, as this was a cool down block it should be removed. Gnangarra 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::This is not a cool down block. I advise the user to take some time to cool down but that is not the reason for the block. His comment to Jeffrey was comptlely unjustified and trampled across our policies on user interaction. We're all volunteers here and no one should have to put up with that sort of behaviour. A neutral admin has reviewed my block and found it valid. You might want to encourage the Winchester to undertake to apologise to Jeffrey and moderate his conduct. If he does so I would be willing to unblock. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Just a heads up but this is on AN/I. ] 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	: I am generally appalled at the lack of transparency of this block especially after what I had to put up with in the month of April, I was all but driven off Misplaced Pages by a pair of users and you guys did NOTHING, even though I took it to Misplaced Pages Admin Noticeboard like I was told to. I was told to "assume good faith" by Isotope23 (read my talk page to see it) even though there were CLEAR violations, CLEAR acts of bad faith like a guy going on a campaign against me and other voters in an AFD, blanking a featured article, blanking my votes, putting stuff about me all over Misplaced Pages and all manner of other stuff. The guy went to revert war every single thing he ever did to an article, went to 3 warnings and nothing was done at ALL. Some guy with a great history goes and says one thing to an admin who's clearly in with some people and gets the "You have to apologise!" Don't say you didn't know or it was a month ago or whatever, I posted it on AN/I so you guys had no excuse to act. Next time I shall have NO hesitation sending any violations by this guy or anyone else to your talk page personally and demanding action, because that is the standard you have set. Thank you for confirming my suspicion that it's all about who you know and who you offend, and newbies are muck in this place and ripe for abusing. ] 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Look, I can only take action on things that come to my attention. Administrators are not one entity - I don't think I've seen your username before so have no idea what you're talking about as I don't read every thread that is posted at ] (let alone remember all of those that I do read). If a user behaves towards you as Thewinchester behaved towards Mr Gustafson, I would take the matter very seriously. As to lack of transparency. There are three discussions- here, at ] and at Thewinchester's talkpage. Every word is there for you to read. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Well, at least I know next time my concerns will be addressed. I've posted diffs to AN/I so you can see for yourself.] 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::BTW one right below Thewinchester case at John Celona - personally attacking other users. He's been given warnings instead, though. Amazing how clear the double standard becomes... Vandals get away with murder and are even allowed to harass people off the project as in my case, good contributors fight vandals, fix articles then have one bad day and get immediately banned without warning. ] 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Had I dealt with that thread I would probably have blocked. I'm sorry to break this to you but administrator are human beings. We aren't all going to do the same thing in the same circumstances. That doesn't mean anyone is wrong, just that there will be in any situation a range of policy-based outcomes. Sometimes one admin will make a harsher decision that another admin would in the same circumstances. That's why we have ] so decisions can be reviewed by others. And if there had been a consensus at ANI that my block was excessive, I would have unblocked. But there wasn't. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I sincerely hope that if a case like this was to arise in future, you would consider the likely impacts of your actions in terms of the perception of Misplaced Pages as a whole by good-faith new contributors. If your high standard of conduct is not being maintained by the majority of other admins, you're probably going to end up quite isolated, or thought of as harsh. While I wouldn't put it quite in the terms Daniel did above, having seen what he went through up close on those AfDs and his own talk page, I can totally understand where he is coming from. As a budding schoolteacher myself, the emphasis on consistency, and the fact that we as a whole as admins lose respect if we're not seen to be consistent (and sadly, we're not often seen as human by the masses :\|) is something I deal with every day - I couldn't expel a kid for swearing in my class, just as I couldn't openly ignore a punch-up going on before my eyes. We're referred to as cabals and the pile-on vote at the AN/I clearly smacked of that - it's very rare to see admins en masse disagree with an action. NYB's comment on the AN/I is instructive and I hold no disagreement with him - the comment was incivil, a warning was appropriate, and probably would have done the job better - right now, we risk losing one of our wikiproject's best contributors because of this apparently quick decision. ] 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::This matter could drag on forever if we allowed it. "It's very rare to see admins en masse disagree with an action." I would disagree with that. We have over 1000 admins fromn different parts of the world with different viewpoints who will often disagree. But in this case that hasn't happened. The overwhelming consensus at ANI and on Thewinchester's talkpage has been supportive of my decision, including admins I have never interacted with. NYB says he would not have blocked (NYB is very reluctant to block in any circumstances so that is not surprising) but he does not say that my decision to do so was wrong or against policy. I have at all times agreed to abide by any consensus at ANI. Should it have been against my decision I would have unblocked. But that was not the case. I do not think I have been inconsistent and the idea that we as a body of admins can consistently react in the same way is absurd. To any situation there will be a number of acceptable reactions, and (though I have never send it was the only action possible) I do not regret deciding to take a stong line given the nature of the attack in question. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::Sorry, but "consensus at AN/I" (or IRC) does not trump policy. WP:BLOCK is clear. Several other admins were wrong in their conclusions, as WP:BLOCK is remarkably clear on two related points (the level necessary to block, and the cool down clause - even if you exclude the latter, you have never justified the former), so it's not a matter for interpretation. At least four others who were not part of that discussion concluded that a block was unnecessary and even provocative. Ironically, this has put me in a weird position, will backfire on you the moment Joestella or some other POV vandal comes knocking and you don't take immediate and extreme action such as you did here, and also the fact that I am now obliged to defend Thewinchester and try and get his block struck off his record even though I disagree with the action he took which led to it in the first place. Simple rule (from real life, not from Misplaced Pages, and I could quote the educational theorist who formulated it too) - don't enforce a rule you can't enforce consistently. Is this what we're going to do every time an editor disagrees with a POV on a page and gets a little heated about it? You're opening up a somewhat dangerous path in this place - assuming bad faith right away of another editor such as you did with Thewinchester without even giving him a chance to retract or explain is a formula for disaster, RfCs and whatever else, and a precedent I do not want to encourage, especially given the heated nature of many debates on Misplaced Pages. This place is controversial and political enough without throwing this into the mix. ] 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 17:22, 1 June 2007

18:12, Friday 17 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

Edit protected request on Temporal single-system interpretation

Hi there. Just a quick note to let you know, as the protecting admin, that I've put at 'edit protected' request on the talk page of Temporal single-system interpretation. Will that page remain protected indefinitely? Carcharoth 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edits. Hopefully the participants will be able to resolve their differences of the talkpage and will request unprotection in the not too distant future.... WjBscribe 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. BTW, I'm working from Category:Uncategorized from April 2007, and it seems someone else is also categorising articles. As I'm just nosy, I was wondering if there is any way of working out who it is? I suppose I could make a list, then a few minutes later make a new list, look at the articles that have gone, and so see who was categorising the articles, but is there another way? Carcharoth 15:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of another way. On some projects you could use "recent changes" but there's just too much background noise on en.wiki for that to work. Of course you may find out that more than one person is helping out. You don't need to make a list though. Just open the category in a window and a while later open the category again in a different browser window. You could then look at an article that appaers in the older window but no longer does in the new one... WjBscribe 15:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My contributions

Scribe, I'm running into an issue with a couple of IP trolls, one in Washington, one in Germany. Since they edit the same pages and say the same things, they are perhaps friends...I don't know. But the Germany IP, User:84.178.254.52, is starting to take all of my portraits and rename them. They have done so with Michael Apted, Patricia Neal, Woody Harrelson, Brett Ratner, et. al. In their Commons descriptions, they mention that they are "removing the self-promotion of the editor." They also aren't giving the required attribution that is stipulated in the licensing. I spent 60-80 hours at Tribeca photographing, uploading and editing these photographs, that to have my work undone by someone with some kind of anti-me agenda is very frustrating and I could use some help. I have also been frustrated with Misplaced Pages in general lately, and some of the things I have witnessed happening on here, and have contemplated leaving. This kind of effort when I have spent so much time, money and patience to make improvements and provide some of the most difficult images to obtain will seal the deal. I won't even finish the projects I have started. I'm simply getting too burned out. I'm asking for some help. --David Shankbone 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as a troll, see his talkpage. Firstly I want to make it clear that your work in providing Wikimedia projects with images is invaluable and well thought of. I'm discussing how to resolve this with a number of Commons admins. The lack of proper attribution in those images is unacceptable and will be sorted. What we're not sure about is if its possible to keep your name in the filename. We can keep attribution in the image description (and you can legal take action against any use of your images without attribution). But anyone can rename a file to anything else.

I don't want you to feel burned out and everyone wants you to be happy. I will not tolerate this behaviour (unfortunately there's less I can do on Commons where I'm not an admin). But the harassment stops and I will take all action I can. If you want to include your name in image filenames that's fine, but we can't force everyone else to do the same (as long as they otherwise provide proper attribution). WjBscribe 20:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. David Shankbone is my Misplaced Pages name for my Misplaced Pages work. I use it in the file names for several reasons: 1. I like to track how they are downloaded and used in magazines, blogs, smalltown newspapers, etc. 2. It keeps them flagged as open use (something User:KP Botany has said she appreciates); 3. because I spend a lot of time and go through a lot of hard work to obtain these. I've had quite a few discussions with User:Jkelly about the issue, and she completely agrees that there is no issue with this; I checked with her before I began the project in earnest last year. There are a couple of IP trolls who have taken issue with my reverting their vandalism. But it's getting to a point where they are actually undoing a lot of the work I have put in on this site. I don't have an issue if the name disappears through natural attrition and expect it. What I find upsetting is a concerted effort to undo a lot of work and not have it occur naturally. --David Shankbone 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of your name is perfectly reasonable. I'm working on those cropped images. If it were up to me I'd delete them for want of attribution and suggest you upload cropped versions if there's a demand for them. As I see no valid reason for renaming your files to remove your name from it other than as harassment I will do my best to prevent it, but I have limited ability to enforce things on Commons. I am behind you 100% however. WjBscribe 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some images where cropped would clearly look better, such as Woody Harrelson. But the Michael Apted looks much better full-length, in my opinon; same for any models I have shot (their body, after all, is part of their fame) like Ana Beatriz Barros; and interesting shots like Matthew Perry and Jeffrey Wright. I personally thought my Drew Barrymore looked better full-length, but I bend to the wishes of the page, unless I feel strongly, and then I'd take it to the discussion page. It hasn't really come up until now. The Patricia Neal looks better with the cane, I think, then just with her ghostly face smiling. There is a method to my madness, believe it or not. --David Shankbone 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant, but interesting to note that for celebrity photographers, the most difficult shots to obtain are good full-body shots, which was my reasoning for using them. It's very easy to get a head shot; very difficult to get a good full-body. Trust me. --David Shankbone 20:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I trust you. But you have to see that the easiest way for your attribution to be diluted is with crops to make images fit more easily in infoboxes etc. If you provide some variations (even if you don't think they're as good - and I tend to agree with you) you get to name the file. And I think we'd have a good case for saying mass renaming of the filenames were harassment/disruption. Unfortunately, I'm having difficulty getting the present cropped images removed. WjBscribe 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wjb, the block early today looks uncalled for. Have you reviewed the edits? The cropped pictures were much better than those from far away full of advertisements. 71.112.115.55 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wjb, blocking editors for edit warring then begin engaging in the same behavior on the same articles looks an awful lot like using admin privileges to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Please avoid the conflict of interest and unblock, or stop reverting. The photos aren't owned by any editor, improving them is perfectly acceptable. If attribution is the issue, just put a note on the image pages. And, of course, if that's why you blocked, you should have given a warning.

I'm not harassing anyone. The cropped images are better, they remove advertisements and fit better into the pages. David is actually harrassing me; reverting my changes on articles like comfort food. I ask you to please avoid the articles and cool off for a while. A block and a threatened block for no real violation is a little over the top. Another admin can step in if there's something greivous going on. 71.112.115.55 02:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the attribution has no problems. I looked at the page on commons, here's the description.

Cropped version of wiki commons Image http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Patricia_Neal_by_David_Shankbone.jpg removed advertisement from picture and editors selfpromotion from filename

In light of this you should probably unblock.

It clearly says "Author | Frauleinwunder" which is incorrect. And even with attribution, that wouldn't justify the stalking of David's contributions. WjBscribe 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

MarioWiki

Why did you deleted the mariowiki article?--Mariofan90 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently because it was a redirect to a deleted page - Super Mario Wiki. That page seems to be have been deleted several times by many administrators. Usually it seems because it does not meet our notability requirements for web content (see WP:WEB). An article on the Super Mario Wiki would need to show that it has been discussed in multiple independent sources to meet the requirements of that policy. WjBscribe 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't forget

I wanted a second set of eyes, and the request for page protection seemed the "correct" route to do it. The other alternative, I guess, would have been to send you a message on your talk page. Basically, I wanted a sanity check from somebody else to say that yes, the edits really are disruptive and the page should be protected. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. When I stepped in, it was a straightforward case of an IP account making an edit, which others had reverted, in violation of the 3RR. Other IP accounts started making the same edit, which I perceived as changing IPs and continuing the conduct. At this point I solicited discussion in the Talk page to see if there's any basis for the link. Once a new user account started editing, that's when I decided to have somebody else look at it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Memo to self: check block log more thoroughly when writing up RfP next time. The edits stopped after I gave a level 4 warning...and then started showing up from other IPs. I thought I had blocked in this case but didn't. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to compare before I'd formally accuse, but I've noticed some strong overlaps in the edit summaries and talk comments between "William O. Rhites" and the anons, especially regarding suppression of the truth. (As an aside, "William O. Rhites" looks like a wordplay on the U.S. Bill of Rights, the amendments to the Constitution that, among other things, provide for freedom of speech and of the press.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was a sockpuppet, but I wasn't going to do anything further on just a suspicion. Thank you for getting the checkuser and for taking care of things. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, WJB

Thanks again for the support. In the future, I will let the IPs do the Photoshop work, and I will re-upload what they have done with a new file name, and ask for them to be deleted off the Commons. Any less photoshop work I have to do is fine by me. Truth is, much of the work they are doing I was going to do anyway (removing ads, re-sizing); it came down to a time issue and my own impatience to get the newly-shot photographs up ASAP. On pages where I think the full-body versions work better, like Michael Apted, I will put it to a Talk page vote (feel free to vote there). I appreciate your effort, very much so. --David Shankbone 06:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, not sure thats legit. You want to take credit for cropping you didn't do?

Check the files, the cropper is clearly credited. WjBscribe 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir.

Thanks a lot for reverting vandalism on my userpage! —MrSomeone 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Usurp problem

Hi WJB. I noticed that you fixed Sesshomaru's talk page not being moved when he usurped his current name. Would it be possible for you to do the same for me? My old user name was User:George.Saliba, but the talk page didn't move over with everything else when I usurped my current name. Thanks. — George 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done :-) WjBscribe 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) — George 09:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Renames and edit counts

Oh, alright, and thanks for the notice. I've seen "just create a new account" before, and I just assumed this was because of a low edit count. Anyways, thanks for notifying me! Cool Blue 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent actions on KFRC, KMVQ, KIFR

Hi, I noticed that you recently did some history merging and other actions on KFRC-FM, KMVQ-FM. based on suggestions by Scottalter. Unfortunately, there was not really enough adequate discussion to form a consensus on how to handle these articles. I don't know how easily these merges and possible deletions can be undone, but really there should have been a wider discussion about this before such action was taken. I'm really at a loss as what to do now, as I think the articles are in a bigger mess than before (e.g. the entire KFRC AM history is now in KMVQ-FM, which is neither where I nor Scottadler thinks it should be.) As I made known on the talk page of what is now entitled KMVQ-FM, the history of KFRC AM 610 should be a separate article, and should not have been merged with any other current FM station article (or KEAR, for that matter). DHowell 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort it out between yourselves and get back to me when you agree what belongs where. If you can come up with a detailed account of what revisions belong where i.e. from Mon 12:30 by User:foo to Fri 21:00 by User:Fee need to be moved to X, I can prob move everything back to the right place. Just be as precise as possible in detailing what needs to be moved. Please be careful not to request history merges unless you are sure about where revisions belong. As long as there are sections of the history that need to be moved (and the edits aren't all jumbled up) this can fixed with a bit of time... WjBscribe 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat MFD on DRV

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The meet

Oh man, is that next week already? Sorry, I'm afraid I won't be able to make it. >Radiant< 12:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)