User talk:WJBscribe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

15:17, Wednesday 20 August 2014

User talk:WJBscribe
(commons · meta)



Face-smile.svg Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Face-smile.svg

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.

I'm not nearly as active as I once was so if the matter is urgent, you may want to contact someone else first.



Hi, I have the global rights from the German Wiki for Benutzer:Bonu, but not in the English and the Dutch wikis. I checked and "User:Bonu" does not have a page on your enwiki. As I am not so experienced in these matters but would like to sometime create a similar page "Marianne Mittelholzer" in, which I have created and documented thoroughly on it would be nice, if I could do it with the same username. Could you please explain, if this is possible and how I should go about it? Or can you establish me directly, as the userpage does not exist? Thx for your help! -- Bonu from (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Issue resolved, thx - I found the usurpation feature [[1]] and user:xeno helped to get my login right. Bonu (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When does a delay become a snub[edit]

At what point will you personally begin to feel snubbed by Stierch? Another 12 hours? A day? A week? At some point it would become clear that a WMF paid employee is also doing undisclosed paid editing on the side and attempting to keep the paid content secretly intermingled with the volunteer content, right? If that's permissible, I think we need to welcome User:MyWikiBiz back to Wikipedia. - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C 3[edit]

I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C 3 in particular about the weight of the single oppose. While it may not have been said in the discussion, a unanimous RFA is a special thing, and while I cannot say for sure, it did seem to be preventing that from happening. Anyway, I wanted to stop by and say I respected your decision and willingness to act. Mkdwtalk 02:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

pictures of personalities
Thank you, Will, for your services as bureaucrat ("doing a job no-one else wants to do"), for images of personalities showing lively presence, for being "one of the project's 'we can't ever lose him' guys", for telling others, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 July 2007 "There's no use in weeping", 16 October 2008)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: admin reject[edit]

I know quite a bit how to contribute to Wikipedia, and I am AConfirmed.

Admin tools would be handy for my anti-vandalism campaign, though, so if you could please set up an interactive admin tutorial for me, I'd be happy to take it. Aharonz1 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Honestly, It looks like its time for result on this discussion [Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11#The_Funkadactyls]]. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Given you seem to have some of the same worries I do, I think I'll be taking your advice. I disagree that it was a procedural issue--that this was under a cloud seems pretty obvious. I don't see how it can be said that he didn't resign "for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." But you all have a lot more experience at this than I. And I'm really bothered by the fact that he's claiming he didn't realize at the time that closing a discussion he had strong opinions on wasn't a good idea--I just find that very hard to believe. But thanks again for the advice, I think it wise. Hobit (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 25#Next gen consoles[edit]

Hello, WJBscribe! You closed this RFD discussion as delete. In the discussion, one user noted that, should "Next gen consoles" be deleted, then the Next generation (video game consoles) redirect should also be deleted. I agree, since that title covers the same topic as "Next gen consoles": Next generation game consoles. Would you consider deleting that redirect as well? Thanks in advance, Heymid (contribs) 09:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but as this second redirect was only mentioned by the last contributor to the discussion and wasn't tagged for deletion, I think it should be the subject of a separate nomination. WJBscribe (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm requesting you to create Template:Web with the content from Template:Web/sandbox if you would please, as you are the one that SALTed the title. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I deleted that redirect as a result of an RfD - Plastikspork (talk · contribs) protected it against recreation. I have no objection to your proposed content for the page. WJBscribe (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahh. Thank you. I'll take it to Plastikspork. I often assume that the one that deleted it is the same that protected it (like it is a one shot deal using some admin tool for deleting pages).  :\ — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 23:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi WJBscribe, I've sent you an e-mail. It's a little long but is nothing urgent. :) Best. Acalamari 11:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Hi Will, there's an RfC underway to discuss whether to remove the opt-in choice from having one's edits displayed by the new Analysis tool, which is the replacement for X!'s edit counter, and which is being hosted by the Foundation. You can find the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Edit Counter Optin. It's something that will have wiki-wide implications.

The RfC is due to close around 3 May, and I would like to suggest that you close it, or that you head up and choose a team of closing admins (or editors/bureaucrats), if you'd rather not do it alone. I was thinking of suggesting you because you're a highly trusted and experienced bureaucrat, and I haven't seen you express an interest in these issues.

Do you I have your permission to put your name forward? I'll completely understand if you'd rather not, because it would be quite a bit of work to read through the whole thing. I'm thinking of alerting the Foundation too, so there might be privacy-related pages to read. So if you'd prefer to say no, that's absolutely fine. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I am travelling at the moment but will be around by 3 May. As you identify, I have no strong views on the subject and am happy to be involved in closing if people would like me to be (either alone or as part of a group if that is preferred). Hope all is well with you. WJBscribe (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Will, that would be really helpful. I'll post on the page that you're willing to do it. Perhaps you could decide nearer the time whether you need others to help you, and if so who would be best. I suppose it'll depend on how much work you think is involved in closing it. Thanks again, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot[edit]

I take the Gpesenti account in WP.EN. Thank you for your effectiveness. Gpesenti (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I would like to remind you that the RfC is approaching its closing day, May 3, where you have agreed to close. That is -109 days from now.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. As I am not sure how much internet access I will have on 3 May itself, I may end up closing a day earlier/couple of days later. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
By way of full disclosure, I realise that I have opted in to the global edit counter previously. If anyone feels that this makes it inappropriate for me to close this RfC discussion, please let me know asap. WJBscribe (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You may have simply opted in so you can see your own stats. I don't feel that it should disqualify you from closing the request.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Bump. The time has come.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I am reading through the discussion and will likely close it later tonight. WJBscribe (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry it took a little while. The discussion was important and raised a lot of issues that were new to me, so it seemed best to wait until I had time to read everything carefully, and then to reflect over night. I have provided a full closing rationale which I hope explains my reasons for concluding that a consensus exists to remove the opt in requirement. WJBscribe (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Now I need to wait to hear from the foundation.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Will, thank you for your thoughtful close and for the time you put into researching the issue. I have some concerns. Apologies for the length of this. Also pinging Philippe.

Your close seems to be based, in part, on a false premise, namely that the result of the RfC on Meta last year was that the opt-in could be removed on a per-wiki basis, if consensus existed. That was a conclusion added by Cyberpower, who opened and closed the RfC. I can't see anything in the discussion that led him to that conclusion.

Part of the problem throughout this situation is that the person maintaining the tool has determined the form in which the discussions about it take place. He opened the first RfC on enwiki, closed it prematurely claiming consensus, opened the Meta RfC, closed it claiming he could remove things on a per-wiki basis, opened this one only because I asked him not to proceed without clear consensus, and was planning to close it himself. That repeated involvement has affected the whole consensus-gathering process.

The issue is whether the Wikimedia movement supports the publication of this kind of data aggregation and the tracking of its users' online activity. (Bear in mind that the tool is going to become more intrusive.) Given that enwiki is arguably the flagship, everyone is going to have a view as to what should happen here. To accord views less weight if they come from another wiki is to prejudge whether what happens here is a legitimate movement-wide concern. (Regarding giving less weight to accounts with few edits in the "keep" section, I noticed one in the "remove" section, but didn't look beyond that. If account history is checked in one section, it might need to be checked in the others too.)

Another issue to take into account is that there are privacy-leaning enwiki editors who didn't comment, because they almost certainly knew nothing about the RfC. I didn't tell people because I didn't want to engage in canvassing. It was a watchlist notice and on CENT, so we had to rely on people seeing it, but there are lots of names missing from the RfC of people who I know have privacy concerns.

Giving each comment equal weight leads to 57 percent in favour of removal, which can't be regarded as consensus. To remove an opt-in after the fact, when people have relied on it for years, is quite a drastic step and to base it on a slim majority seems wrong. (A grandfather clause is something you could have considered, or switching to opt-out with wide notification of the change.)

What we really need is a period of consultation to discuss the ethical and legal issues, and to examine best practice elsewhere and what other tools are available. This should be followed by an RfC that's written by neutral editors, and ideally closed by a mixed panel of privacy- and transparency-leaning editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You are right that I relied on the close of the meta RfC and did not make my own assessment of the consensus of that discussion. I don't really think it's open to me to do that - it's a discussion on meta that was closed several months ago. If there is an issue with the closure of that discussion, they may need to be pursued on meta but I have not been an admin on that project for many years. You are quire right that, if the global consensus is not to allow opt out on a wiki-by-wiki basis, then the discussion here proceeded on a false basis. No doubt Phillipe or one of his colleagues could assist with that point.
I stand by my assessment of the consensus here on enwiki. Neither "opt out" nor grandfathering received much support in the discussion, but I did consider both. As I said in my close, I hope this isn't the end of discussion of how tools should be used to present aggregated data - further reflection and discussion would be helpful. Cyberpower has indicated that nothing is going to change overnight and the WMF may of course chime in given that they host the tool. WJBscribe (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I wonder whether the next step ought to be an RfC on Meta that asks whether the opt-in can be removed on a per-wiki basis. That's the question that has been begged here. I can see an argument that it should be left to individual wikis and the editors most affected, but also that what happens here affects editors who mostly edit elsewhere (and if they comment here their posts are given less weight).
As for opt-out and grandfather clauses, yes, they received less attention in that RfC, but they might be good compromises. (Everyone wanting opt-in would support opt-out as better than nothing.) One way to have closed the RfC would have been in stages; that is, to suggest a second RfC to ask about the support for opt-out and grandfathering if opt-in were to be removed. I'm concerned that this has left us with all or nothing, and I get the impression that Cyberpower is keen to remove the restrictions asap. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


You deleted this redirect when none of the contributors to the discussion had recommended deletion. Why? Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Good spot - I had meant to close that one as retarget but used the wrong description. BDD then deleted the redirect based on my incorrect close. Now fixed. WJBscribe (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

Hi WJBscribe. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Global Account merge[edit]

Dear Will - I am 'steinbeck' in the German Wikipedia and have tried to move to a global account. This worked for

but not for

Problem is that I haven't done edits in for a while and no idea which of my many past addresses, some of which I have lost access to, the account is associated with. So the password recovery process is tedious at best (24h request limit) or impossible. Can I please ask for your help? Sorry, I obviously cannot log-in and sign this due to my loss of access, nor could I send you an email via your page, but if you want a verification of my identity, continuing this discussion at (the address registered with my account) would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions of my account due to inactivity[edit]

Hi. I was inactive on Wikipedia for some time and now I found a message from you on User talk:Rfl#Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity.

I would like to start the re-sysopping process but I haven't done that before so I have a quick question: should I contact you about this subject since you were the one who suspended my permissions or should I post a message to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard? Thanks for any help. (Here is my original nomination for adminship and here are my contributions if it is needed to evaluate the quality of my past contributions) Thanks. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Per the WP:RESYSOP procedure, you should post to WP:BN. Welcome back, –xenotalk 02:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Xeno. I'll post to WP:BN then. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 03:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing Username[edit]

Can you please change my username from Miquaz1 to Miquaz9 since you are a bureaucrat? The reason: I just want my username changed.-- Miquaz1 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Miquaz. You can request a new username at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. WJBscribe (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)