User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 31

User:Bonu
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 en.wiki, which I have created and documented thoroughly on de.wikipedia.org 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 de.wikipedia.org  62.12.245.162 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved, thx - I found the usurpation feature [|feature] and user:xeno helped to get my login right. Bonu (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

When does a delay become a snub
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)

Requests for adminship/MER-C 3
I appreciated your comments at 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. Mkdw talk 02:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  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, - 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) A year ago, you were the 722nd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: admin reject
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)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11#The_Funkadactyls
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)

Thanks
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)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 25
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, Hey  mid  (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)

Template:Web
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. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, I deleted that redirect as a result of an RfD - 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 . 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).  :\ — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Reminder
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 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 Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 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.

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. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">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)

WP:RFD
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. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014
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
Dear Will - I am 'steinbeck' in the German Wikipedia and have tried to move to a global account. This worked for de.wikipedia.org meta.wikimedia.org but not for en.wikipedia.org Problem is that I haven't done edits in en.wikipedia.org 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 er@doktor-steinbeck.de (the address registered with my de.wikipedia.org account) would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.221.145 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. 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
Hi. I was inactive on Wikipedia for some time and now I found a message from you on User talk:Rfl.

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)
 * Per the WP:RESYSOP procedure, you should post to WP:BN. Welcome back, – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 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
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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see 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
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 Changing username/Simple. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings
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
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)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users
Dear WJBscribe,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Cecropia Thanks You
Thanks for the kind words, Will, and the heads-up. I'm begging for rights on the Bureaucrat Noticeboard even as we speak. :) -- Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Add thanks also for restoring by permissions. -- Cecropia (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Glad to see you back. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding A Clockwork Nebari
I noticed that you had protected this redirect as a result of an edit war in 2007. The section which the redirect is targeting is no longer valid. At this point, it seems that the edit war will most likely not start again. Would you be able to remove the protection from this redirect so I may edit/categorize it? (I'm asking you to unprotect it in lieu of posting an edit request since I don't believe an edit war will start again.) Steel1943  (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure - not a problem. Now unprotected. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please subscribe to the global renamers mailing list
Dear global renamer,

You have not yet subscribed to the global renamers mailing list. Considering the diverse background of all renamers, and with the intention to create an efficient platform for direct internal assistance and discussion, we strongly encourage you to do so. Please subscribe here and send me or Trijnstel an email to confirm it is you requesting it. Should you have any questions or comments, please let us know.

Thank you, Savhñ 23:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Can you please look at your inbox? I've send you an email. Trijnstel talk 09:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)