User talk:WJBscribe

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

List of crossover thrash bands

Hello, would you be willing to restore or send me the content of List of crossover thrash bands, which was deleted along with crossover thrash after this "articles for deletion" debate? Crossover thrash has since been deemed notable and its article recreated, so the list should IMO be recreated as well.--MASHAUNIX 19:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I can confirm that List of crossover thrash bands does not include any information that is not already included in the recreated Crossover thrash article. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I should've assumed so anyway.--MASHAUNIX 16:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment on recent absence from Wikipedia

Quick message for any talkpage watchers etc as I've been away for a few months. Nothing dramatic happening, just very busy at work. Let me know if there's anything that I have overlooked/not responded to that needs my attention - although I suspect that most things will have resolved themselves in the meantime. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha, good to see you're back! I still need your email address to get you subscribed to the global-renamers mailing list. Please email me or reply to the email I just send to you. :) Thanks in advance for the help! With regards, Trijnstel_talk 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back. My email address is no secret, it's WJBscribe at gmail dot com. I'm not trying to be difficult, but is joining the list necessary? I confess I'm a big sceptic of mailing lists and would prefer communications were kept on wiki/meta as much as possible. What sort of things are discussed on the list? WJBscribe (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've not seen anything on the list that couldn't have been discussed on wiki (and indeed benefitted from non-bureaucrat commentary), but I suppose the fact that not all global renamers would visit meta that often is an argument in favour of the mailing list. –xeno^talk 00:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, agree with Xeno - though the developers are subscribed too & they use the mailing list to keep the global renamers up to date about the m:SUL finalization for example. Then they should be able to reach all global renamers when needed (for example when no one should use the tool for a bit). And when you encounter a bug, you can easily contact a dev and/or staff member. Anyhow, I've added you. The list is archived, so you can read back the old discussions. Thanks for helping. :-) With regards, Trijnstel_talk 13:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

username change for EmeraldRS

It says that you have done the change - thanks! But I can't log in with my new username, it says my account is currently being renamed or merged. Help! 80.176.153.231 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything looks OK here. Are you still having rouble logging in? WJBscribe (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Still can't login. When I try to log-in the message says "Login error/ Your account is currently being renamed or merged./ View the status", clicking 'View the status' shows the Global rename progress with everything 'Done' except de.wikipedia.org which is 'Queued' and has been for approaching 24 hours. I get exactly the same thing at Meta, Wikisource and Commons. I have never used de.wikipedia.org and, not speaking German, probably never will. I hope you can help. 80.176.153.231 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems there was a pre-existing Emerald-wiki on deWP, this was identified by User: SiBr4 in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I seem to be sitting in no man's land, unable to login and unable to choose a different username!!!80.176.153.231 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignore the previous comment - it seems that was a red herring, and I am just stuck in a queue in DE!!80.176.153.231 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see this now sorted. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

User talk:F9T listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User talk:F9T. Since you had some involvement with the User talk:F9T redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Theosophist (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your support over at my RfA. Especially for your kind words - though I'm sure there are those with whom I have worked over the years who would dispute both "sensible" and "level-headed". :-)

I shall do my best to be worthy of the honor. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Workshopping bureaucrat activity requirements

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: bureaucrat discussion opened

Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. –xeno^talk 16:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You know they say talking to yourself is the first sign of madness. – Steel 11:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But I hear such charm and wonderous wisdom..! *cackles* WJBscribe (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, WJBscribe. I will try to comment later on. Is there a particular reason Brion VIBBER is not in the messagelist? –xeno^talk 14:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I've always assumed he holds the permission for technical reasons, rather than being available to perform bureaucrat tasks. WJBscribe (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's still the case that these tools are held for necessary technical reasons, I suppose we need an exception if the activity requirements are carried. –xeno^talk

To be honest, I'd be surprised if Brion didn't have all elements of the bureaucrat toolset through some global permission. We could just ask him if still wants the permission (he may have forgotten he has it). WJBscribe (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/670993383

He had already withdrawn. Why did you overwrite it? Dustin (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The RfA ran its full course and was closed in accordance with the discussion that followed between bureaucrats, which is consistent with previous approaches. "Withdrawn" suggests that it wasn't left to run the full time. WJBscribe (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

bureaucrats

User:Xeno, User:Avraham

I'm hesitant to start a new thread there, and this is a bit of a tangent.

I am getting an understanding that there is a concern about bureaucrats in general. I don't mean the editors. I mean, I think that due to several stages of SUL changes the user-right package and responsibilities have changed quite a bit.

My estimation is that the group was initially essentially sort of a "local sysadmin" without calling them that and with limited (though potentially potent) buttons to push. So that one didn't have to do it manually in the shell back when.

Things have quite changed, as they do.

admin is pretty much still the catch-all for any tools not given to auto confirmed. But bureaucrat is now a local mini steward, except that they also have to assess consensus of the voting/consensus hybrid that is RfA. (Am I correct that BAG does the CON there with the bureaucrat just flipping the switch at their request, like a local steward?)

Here's where I'm going with this:

I am strongly opposed to "reconfirmation RfA/Bs" for many reasons (part of what I don't like about the current discussion).

But here is a thought.

What if we just get rid of the bureaucrat user-right. That means everyone loses it simultaneously. No negativity, We thank all the bureaucrats for their long service, etc.

Then create a new user-right called something else which gives the impression of local-steward (which buttons to flip that they should be granted can be discussed) who also closes discussions related to those buttons (rfa, for example) It can be decided if this should include BAG activations, or if that should be separate user-right (Bot-activator?).

And that's that.

Those interested in actually helping out in those areas can volunteer.

And we just solved all the concerns.

I of course welcome your thoughts on this. - jc37 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for continuuing to brainstorm on this, but would that just effectively be forcing all 'crats to run for reconfiration? (In a roundabout way) –xeno^talk 09:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, for one, from what I can see, my presumption is only a handful would. And second, it really would be a new user-right. as it is, the current package looks rather different than it did if we even merely go halfway back to the founding.

I compare this somewhat to how check user and oversight went through growing pains due to privacy and other reasons (tools several bureaucrats had at one point). I think after removing so many user-rights and adding others, this user-right package just really isn't what it was.

So I'm seriously suggesting creating "something else".

Let's look at the user-rights:

• Create accounts with names similar to existing usernames (override-antispoof)
• Move pages with their subpages (move-subpages)
• Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
• Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect)
• Override the title or username blacklist (tboverride)
• Add groups: Account creators, Flow bots, Administrators, Bureaucrats, Bots and Pending changes reviewers
• Remove groups: IP block exemptions, Account creators, Administrators, Flow bots, Bots and Pending changes reviewers

Except for add and remove, all looks like leftover tools from when they could rename accounts (rate limits being a partial exception, though admins have already)..

And if we remove all the add/remove that admins can already do, we're left with: bot-related, add A/B and remove A.

And if (as I saw proposed somewhere) the bot related ones are granted to "bot activators" at BAG, then, this user-right group is essentially rfa/b closer.

So what I'm suggesting is to let this "name" go. Let everyone walk away with dignity. These are real people. Volunteers who, at one point at least, gave their time to the wiki. (I honestly think I'm preaching to the choir here : )

What we do from there, depends on what we want. Do we want a separate user0group to close RfA? Do we need it?

We could treat RfA like a "contentious close", and while it's going on, potential closers could volunteer at WT:RfA. And so no additional user-right would be needed.

Or, to go in the other direction (from dissolving bureaucrat), we could have a new user-right of local-steward, which are just button pushers (add/remove catchall of most things), who can also close the requests for said tools discussions.

I prefer the latter option.

I think it's a direction we're growing to (due to the idiosyncrasies of WP policies compared to other wmf wikis) and that WM stewards by their nature are not discussion closers.

But this really is growing beyond what bureaucrat currently is, hence the suggestion to deprecate the name (and associated package), allow everyone their dignity, and move forward. - jc37 10:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I see how your solution would more cleanly and decisively solve one of the problems identified at the RfC, but I agree entirely with Avi below. –xeno^talk 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I do too, though I think we're too quick to define what a bureaucrat is "now", especially since there are those whose RfBs may have hinged on renaming... I think this is a precise moment in time where we can say "what a bureaucrat is", is in a state of flux. (See this for just one example of a community member's expectations of what a bureaucrat is - and is not.)

And "one of"? What others do you see xeno? I'm only seeing "fear of ineptness/misuse/abuse" all over that page. - jc37 13:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The most important function of bureaucrats is the one they use the least, and that is to determine community consensus. Most of the time it is plainly obvious, sometimes it is not so obvious, and rarely it is so knife edge that multiple bureaucrats need to confer. Regardless of who flips the bit, some body of people have to be entrusted with making that call, and it is certainly preferred that this be a local group than a global group (such as the stewards). And isn't your 'local-steward' suggestion just bureaucrats under another name? BTW, stewards can be discussion closers when necessary for the projects who don't have local functionaries, but I digress. Therefore, even if all the other tools were removed, there would still be a need for a class of people, and almost all of us who are now in this class, have demonstrated that our judgement is trusted by the project (at least those who ran for RfB after 2004/2005, IIRC). Therefore, I don't think that summarily removing and reinstating would provide significantly more clarity. I am not adverse to considering a discussion about who should flag bots (at least non-admin bots), but I do think we need a "closers" group for RfA, and we have one already. Just my current opinion, for which, as usual, I reserve the right to change my mind if faced with convincing arguments to the contrary 8-) Sorry about th etalk page spam, @WJBScribe: perhaps we should move this elsewhere. -- Avi (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm happy to host the discussion - do grab a chair and help yourself to refreshments :-). Just thinking about the points made at the moment. I'll chime in soon. WJBscribe (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Simpler

Well, how about this as a proposal:

• The bureaucrat user-right is immediately removed from all bureaucrats once a year. Any former bureaucrat who meets current policy requirement of activity may at any time (including "immediately") request for the user-right at WP:BN. (A steward could be on hand for this "once a year" moment.)

Again, allows dignity to all not re-asking for the tools. The biggest negatives would be increasing some logs, and the flipping of switches.

And 'as written I don't think I'd oppose this for admins either. but once people start changing the inactivity policy, I couldn't support this, as it would go hand-in-hand with the inactivity policy. - jc37 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Trying to pick fights"

Commenting here to avoid the RFA degenerating further, but yes, I don't think "trying to pick fights" is either unfair or inaccurate. A persistent trend—the thread I cited in the RFA and the oft-cited diff on Eric Corbett's talkpage are two examples, but there are plenty more—is this candidate either stirring up arguments that were naturally dying down, or inserting herself into reasonably calm discussions with the apparent intention of encouraging the participants to become agitated. Depending on your degree of AGF, this is either deliberately trying to provoke fights, a demonstration of a serious lack of empathy, a major lack of attention to detail or shooting from the hip without bothering to check the context, and I don't consider any of the four to be a desirable characteristic in someone with a block button.

It's perfectly possible to reconcile "assume good faith" with "trying to pick fights". Without naming names (although everyone could give their own examples) I'm aware of numerous situations where Editor A believes that Editor B is a net negative and actively tries to provoke them into doing something inappropriate to give a pretext to call for a ban, or follows their contributions obssessively looking for minor infractions in an effort to find a technical breach of policy, all the while genuinely believing that they're acting in Wikipedia's interests in so doing. I am also aware—as, I imagine, are you—of at least one recent desysopping and another recent "resignation" which was a jump-before-pushed desysopping in all but name, for precisely this kind of conduct, so it's not some obscure hypothetical which never impacts on reality. – iridescent 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(adding) Regarding "Do we really think people would waste their time if they didn't think they were making Wikipedia better?", having spent a reasonable chunk of the last decade shooing away Mattisse and Grawp socks, I can unreservedly answer "yes" to that. "Being interested in Wikipedia" is decidedly not a synonym for "wanting to improve Wikipedia", unless you mean some philosophical question over whether the "hasten the day" notion that Wikipedia has to be made unusable before it can be killed and replaced with something better is ultimately an good faith effort. – iridescent 17:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. WJBscribe (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA

There are a lot of odd !votes at the RfA, including people who are basically inactive but have popped up to say something, but this is not one of them. Brustopher was Bosstopher until WP:CHUS. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA strikeout

New account, yes. Created to participate in the RFA, no. Participated as an IP as well (not much). If I provide it will you unstrike? I wasn't aware there's a participation threshold to vote in an RfA. Worth Overdoing (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)