User talk:WJBscribe

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

13:12, Monday 5 October 2015

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.



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) –xenotalk 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. –xenotalk 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)


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"[edit]

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)


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)

Why is the rename significant? WJBscribe (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it isn't to you but they have made 2750 edits and have been pretty active in the recent Gamergate/gender-related/civility discussions etc, so I guess they're more active at present than, say, Manning Bartlett and perhaps more likely to have seen Liz around also because she did have some involvement in those discussions at one point. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross purposes. The oppose I queried was by Aparslet, not Brustopher. Brustopher made a comment pointing out that Aparslet had few other edits. WJBscribe (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, drat. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Those who know me are aware that I maintain an exopedian approach, and tend to edit anonymously. I am aware of far more than I choose to get involved in. Manning (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA strikeout[edit]

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)

Sorry, but IPs are not allowed to contribute to RfAs in the support/oppose sections. There'd be little point in keeping that rule if a new account could be used. I wish you all the best, but it's not appropriate for you to use your first edit(s) to participate in an RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been following along a lot as an IP but I didn't create the account to participate in the RfA, I created it so I wouldn't be an IP anymore and I didn't want to recover my old account. That one is identifiable to my real name, and there's too much outing/attacking that goes on offsite. I was the first IP involved with the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGhazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and posted on AN/I about it as it had become a proxy war/WP:POVFORK for Gamergate [1]. After the AfD was settled, I decided it was time to create a new account. Found out about the RFA the next day on Liz's talk page. No, Flyer22 I am not a sock of anyone; until 2015 I didn't post much since old account in 2005 and one-off IP comments. You can probably tell I'm pretty rusty from the errors I'm making. More free time now, need to relearn everything. I gotta say the assumption everyone is a sock is pretty unwelcoming, and it is Liz's outgoing nature/willingness to AGF that made me want to vote in favor. I'll happily send copy of my ID to WMF or long-time uninvolved senior person (bureaucrat? Arbcon?) and you have my permission to check this IP range. As there may not be time to decide this before RFA closes, guess I don't get to vote. Pity. Worth Overdoing (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Worth Overdoing, I have a lot of experience with identifying WP:Socks or other non-new returning editors, including those using WP:Clean start validly or inappropriately, and I am usually right on such matters. I've seen every "I'm not a WP:Sock" explanation and WP:Sock trick there is, including attempts to appear less experienced at editing Wikipedia than they are. I go by my common sense and experience on such matters. Very experienced Wikipedia editors are going to initially think, or continue to think, that you are a WP:Sock, and with good reason. And as others (including me) have noted in Liz's WP:RfA, there are instances where her WP:Assuming good faith has proven problematic with regard to WP:Socks and other disruptive editors. Hopefully, she will eventually take a harder stance on that matter. Siding with and/or trying to help problematic editors is often a waste of time. Too often, in fact.
On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page, since it's currently on my WP:Watchlist. I'll also cease WP:Pinging you to this discussion since I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies, or that this talk page is on your WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to reply, but I'm afraid you are very much in error. This reminds me of a study(link) I heard waaaaaay back in the dark ages when I was in college and watched a film showing a psych ward patient at a competency hearing pleading his case and explaining that the longer he stayed locked up, the crazier he was becoming. Once he was escorted out of the hearing room, the psych immediately announced that the patient needed his meds upped and didn't say a word about letting him out. Almost every person in that lecture hall agreed the patient sounded completely reasonable, sane, lucid and competent, that his agitation was because he could see the psych ignoring what he was saying. The prof went on to show some statistics showing that the more senior a person was in their psych education (general public, college major, grad student, psych), the more likely he or she was to conclude that a sane patient (brought in as a blind test) was actually insane. Classic Type I error.
I suspect the same thing is happening with you, your many years sniffing out the socks have you sniffing foot odor and tossing out the entire hamper. Your comments on the RFA suggest above suggest a similar inflexible approach, doubling down by insisting that should Liz get the tools, she should become less welcoming. Understand, I've seen sock damage on the Gamergate pages! I thought Arbcom erred by refusing to recognize or admit there was an organized off-Wiki attack using throwaway accounts, designed and weaponized to pick off "enemy" long-time editors. So, I do understand your concern for the project, I just note your detection ability is on hyper hairtrigger. Anyway, My editing mistakes are due to extreme lack of practice and changes to Wikipedia itself, my familiarity with some policy (obviously not enough) is due to plenty of reading noticeboards and talk pages as well as articles. I simply don't know what else to say if your only answer is to conclude the hearing and up my meds. Have a good evening. Worth Overdoing (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Worth Overdoing, I am not in error with regard to stating "I have a lot of experience with identifying WP:Socks or other non-new returning editors, including those using WP:Clean start validly or inappropriately, and I am usually right on such matters." or with regard to stating "Very experienced Wikipedia editors are going to initially think, or continue to think, that you are a WP:Sock, and with good reason." Nor am I wrong about Liz's approach to problematic editors, especially highly problematic editors. Or with regard to stating "Siding with and/or trying to help problematic editors is often a waste of time. Too often, in fact." I am flexible where it seems reasonable. If you want me to list all the times I have been correct on such matters, I will, but I see no need to brag at the moment. I did not state that Liz "should become less welcoming." I, as have others in her WP:RfA, stated that she takes WP:Assume good faith too far. And I stand by that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I know that some people (sometimes the ones I turn out to be correct about) feel that I don't use enough WP:Assume good faith. But regarding that, I go back to what I stated about usually being right when it comes to editors I suspect are WP:Socking or editors who have proven problematic times over. The ones who have proven problematic times over usually don't change their problematic behavior. They just take breaks from it. Or, if they do change it, they move on to a different type of problematic behavior. And it's exhausting for the Wikipedia community to repeatedly give them another chance. I don't think it should take three or four tries or more before an indefinite block and/or WP:Ban is issued to such editors. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion but, Worth Overdoing, I didn't strike your vote on suspicion of sock puppetry, I did so because users who choose to edit as IPs without creating an account cannot participate in RfAs in the support/oppose column. Taking everything you say at face value, I am not going to start a precedent of allowing completely new accounts to participate in RfAs. I'm sorry if this sours your experience of contributing with an account, but I strongly suggest you park your wish to contribute to Liz's RfA and turn your attentions to another part of Wikipedia. I can say that RfAs are not a vote, and whether or not Liz becomes an admin will not turn on whether or not you are permitted to express your support in the support section. WJBscribe (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WJBscribe, thank you both for taking the time to speak with me. You may have noticed that once stricken I didn't attempt to !vote again although I added comments, as you told another IP those were allowed. I really do not want to be that guy. There was a discussion on the RfA Talk page about whether a hard rule is needed so new editors know whether they are welcome on RfAs or should wait. Nothing said "new account, almost no edits, you may not !vote" so I did and got slapped. All these unwritten rules are part of the problem with IPs and newbies on an RfA or other places we aren't welcome. If I saw, say, a 30/500 rule I wouldn't have done so. Yes, I will find some other ways to help improve en:WP. For now I am going to go through some tutorials etc then find some cleanup work requested or stubs that need to become articles. My Talk page didn't get any Welcome templates, so any suggestions where to begin are most appreciated. WorthOverdoing 07:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/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) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo alert: "restate their suppose". - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you - just checking whether anyone was reading the page ;-). WJBscribe (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My RfA vote[edit]

By the time I noticed your question the RfA had closed, so I hope it's ok if I respond here. Even though my account is old, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian (as is obvious from my contributions). Even though I was not contributing, I have been following article talk page discussions somewhat closely for the last nine months or so (primarily related to the Gamergate controversy and the Gender Gap Task Force). After reading contributions from many different editors of all stripes I decided that the only way to improve Wikipedia (in the sense that it's always improving -- not in the sense that it's flawed) is to actually log into my account and try to contribute. Before diving directly in, I looked at the user talk pages of editors that I noted as being combative and disruptive and also those pages of editors that I noted as working towards consensus. And it was in viewing her talk page that I noticed Liz was nominated for adminship.

Now, I did not want to jump into the RfA waters immediately, so I simply watched the page at first. I was happy to see Liz receiving such overwhelming support. It wasn't until oppose votes started to pile up that I thought I would voice my opinion that Liz is the type of editor that works toward improving the encyclopedia -- even when others are losing their cool. I did check to ensure there wasn't some sort of activity threshold needed to vote, but I see that a number of votes have been stricken since then (although it appears many of those accounts were created for the sole purpose of voting). I hope that explanation was useful. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any additional questions! Mizike (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. WJBscribe (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me answering here as well. I have been watching wikipedia for a few months doing minor copyedits trying to learn about the place before starting editing in earnest. My plan is to do some work on scandinavian history since I'm studying that at uni. I've been checking out AN, ANI, AE and similar areas and saw Liz there several times. When I came upon the RfA section her RfA had recently started and I read the well argued arguments by Bishonen and Drmies and thought I'd add an oppose vote since I felt the same way. I didn't see anything on the RfA page suggesting that it wasn't for new users. If that is the case I apologize and wil refrain from posting there in the future. Aparslet (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. No need to stay away from RfA - new users are welcome, but are more likely to be asked a few questions to establish the reason for their participation, as you were. WJBscribe (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing Avraham's comment[edit]


Please explain.

Samsara 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara. I realise you reverted asking this question, but actually I think you were right to point it out, thanks. I moved Avi's comment because I read it as a response to yours, but actually I think it stands alone and have restored it. I will leave the copy on the talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
My comment was as a response to Andrevan. I was running out to a meeting; my apologies for any confusion. -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

Bureaucrat Barnstar Hires.png The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
Time and time again, the bureaucrats of en-wiki demonstrate their levelheadedness and expertise. Like an anesthesiologist in an operating room, you spend most of your time screwing around reading a magazine, but stand ready to spring into action when needed, only to fade into the background once your important work is done.

Or perhaps that's more like Batman? Whatever your preferred metaphor, I am consistently impressed by the bureaucrat corps. Thank you for your service. HiDrNick! 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. WJBscribe (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll[edit]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Would you mind taking a look at my username request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple? Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done. WJBscribe (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My RfA Crat Chat[edit]

Hello, WJBscribe,

I just wanted to thank you and all of the bureaucrats who participated in the bureaucrat chat after my RfA was closed. There were a lot of votes and comments to go through along with the enormous amount of content on the crat chat talk page. I appreciate the time and care the bureaucrats took to consider all of the arguments and come to a consensus.

I never imagined that my RfA would be at all contentious or have such a big turnout. Although I hope you don't have many close call RfAs in the future, I know if you do, that Wikipedia's bureaucrats will find their way to a decision. Thank you again for your work in bringing this RfA to a close. Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Will,

I think you may have accidentally checked the wrong box after closing Cyclonebiskit's RfA as successful. Either that or I've really been gone too long! – Juliancolton | Talk 21:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. More that I forgot to check the important box! Too many user permissions these days... *grumbles* WJBscribe (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussions[edit]

Hi Will,

Thank you for keeping me up on bureaucrat discussions. I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up with them in real time but am grateful for them in the hope I'll have some more time to participate. Glad to hear from you anytime! Your friend Cecropia (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. There are a number of discussions presently occuring around the wiki regarding, variously: RfAs, de-adminship processes, bureaucrat activity requirements, the bureaucrat role in general. You may wish to contibute to these if time allows. I likewise hope you'll have time in future to become more involved in bureaucrat matters - we miss your input. I hope all is well with you. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that some of the heat has died down, I wonder if you would consider...[edit]

I don't think your comment here [3] was taken as you intended. I believe David Auerbach (Auerbachkeller) took it as a comment that you were accusing him of being a GamerGate supporter or having a GamerGate agenda. A literal reading of your comment doesn't support that so I am hoping that wasn't your intent. The speculation about Reddit is entirely wrong, though, and I can email you why it's wrong and what most likely attracted David to the RfA if you like. His participation on WP is largely driven by editors that discuss his work on-wiki (often negatively and personally directed at him instead of critical commentary about content) - he participated in the RfA after some of those editors participated, if that timeline helps establish "User contributions" button. Those editors participating aren't sufficiently compelling from David to participate but, coupled with the subject, it made sense. I was not surprised by any of the non-regular RfA participants as they tend to show up in bunches as they follow each other which is not prohibited behavior or canvassing. I chose not to bring it up the !vote strike at the time because one !vote wasn't going to change anything and discounting was going to be done as part of the process so a blow up over one or two comment strikes out of nearly 300 serves no purpose (I'd argue that in hindsight, there was no reason to strike it either as it only stirred the pot a bit and generated some IP generated strikes and more non-RfA interest.) Considering our article on Gamergate controversy and the association of so-called "Gamergate supporters" with misogynists, hate groups and perpetrators of rape and death threats, I think you can understand why even an inference of association or agenda can be taken as an insult. He took your comment to BLPN [4][5] as it upset him enough to consider it a BLP violation instead of just a misunderstanding, NPA vio or other civility issue. David has been accused of being a Gamergate supporter so he is justifiably concerned even if the intent is not present in your comment. Even today, others have read comments made on the internet and jumped to the false conclusion that David is a Gamergate supporter but later ended up apologizing[6] for being successfully trolled by those making false allegations. I think it would be a good faith gesture to refactor (and maybe hide) the history of the closed RfA discussion as at least an "AGF" courtesy. It won't change the count, the crat discussion or outcome but will remove some of the frustration David has experienced with WP in general and how he feels WP has portrayed him and his work. I think refactoring your "strike comment" to something like Striking !vote from sparingly used account. or something similar that removes GG and reddit references and sending a note to David might help. I view David's participation in WP as similar to Siegenthaler when he discovered the false Kennedy Assassination allegations in his bio. I would hope if Siegenthaler registered an account and !voted in Brian Chase's RfA, the comment for striking the vote wouldn't refer to a "SPA only interested in fighting Kennedy Assassination conspiracy agenda." Auerbach views his contributions largely as defending his reputation with a few article edits in between defense. I'll note that he is only defending his reputation from comments made by WP editors and misrepresentation of his work in paraphrased summaries (that editor is now site banned by ArbCom). I hope you'll consider this request and how sensitive he views it. Thanks. --DHeyward (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had not seen the BLP noticeboard threads - they were not brought to my attention, nor did the user raise the matter here as you have done. Some thoughts, in no particular order:
  1. RfA pages are not indexed by google, so the impact on the user outside this project is minimal.
  2. I remain of the view that my reasons for striking the comment were correct, and are described correctly. The account's edits are almost solely confined to the "Gamergate" subject. I did not give consideration to which side of the debate this user fell on, which was not relevant to my decision to strike the comment.
  3. His comment was made shortly after the discussion was advertised on Reddit. The user appears to be familiar with that site. Whilst I accept that it is possible he came to the discussion another way, I think it overwhelmingly probable that he came to the discussion having read about it on Reddit.
  4. If I used your alternative wording, Striking !vote from sparingly used account., I think this would be misleading to someone reviewing the archived RfA because: (a) it wasn't the reason I struck the comment; and (b) it would suggest that there is a rule against "sparingly used" accounts participating in RfAs, which there isn't.
  5. That said, I understand the issue you raise to be that the user sees the comment that accompanied the striking of his comment as indicating bad faith. It doesn't, merely that the comment is unrepresentative of the community as a whole (being a single issue contributor whose vote strongly appeared to have been canvassed).
  6. I will courtesy blank the reasons for the striking (they will remain accessible in the page history), but I am not convinced that there is a need for more than that.
Feel free to raise this issue for further comment, say at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, if you would like uninvolved input. WJBscribe (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements[edit]

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xenotalk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno: Should we be progressing this? I note the log page is still a redlink. Happy to help but don't want to get under foot if you have this in hand. WJBscribe (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just holding on bot support, but the data could probably be generated manually- I've just been pretty busy off-project and not had time to move anything forward. You should feel free to do so, though. User:Madman said he could probably get coding mid-late October but wouldn't take offense if we farmed it out to someone else (here's the spec sheet: User_talk:Madman/Archive_9#Bureaucrat_activity_table). Thanks =) –xenotalk 13:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You 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/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Usurping User:Erik[edit]

Hello, I see that you have global rename access (and have seen you around more than the others listed), and I am wondering if you could evaluate a situation for me. I used to be User:Erik from April 2007 to March 2015. Due to the global renaming, an editor on the North Frisian Wikipedia ( with only 205 edits and not having edited since August 2014, got that handle globally. I was forced to change to User:Erik~enwiki and later changed to User:Erik II. I am wondering if it is possible to re-evaluate this forced renaming, especially with my continued and substantial activity. Thanks, Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I've fixed what as far as I'm concerned is an obvious error in the rename script. A user on an obscure wiki (even if a sysop) with 200 edits should never have displaced a user with tens of thousands of edits to another project. Given that the other user has been inactive for over a year, I have no hesitation in reversing it. Once the rename process is complete (currently in progress), your name will once again be Erik (talk · contribs) - I apologise for the inconvenience and thanks for bearing with us. WJBscribe (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'm glad that was as easy as it was. It's good to be back. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)