User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 30

Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35 Improvement Hi WJB, many a moon ago you once did an editor review on me. I'm wondering if you'd be available to give me some feedback on my recent contributions. More important, I worry that I've picked up some bad habits along the way and would like to find areas to improve. The main reason I'm asking is because I'm starting to get involved more heavily with policy/guideline improvement and AfD's which in turn is leading me to be interested in the possibility of RfA down the road. Let me know if you have time, and no worries if you're feeling too busy. Mkdwtalk 08:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hi Mkdw. I would love to help but have little time spare for Wikipedia at the moment. I will try to find time to take a look, but hope you won't be too disappointed if that isn't possible. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Desysopping error Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Luigi30. Thanks. MBisanz talk 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I have commented and reverted. On an unrelated matter, I note that our last discussion has been automatically archived from your talkpage before I had a chance to respond - all too often a problem these days when one only has time to dip into project now and again. I don't propose to resurrect the discussion and respond in detail given the manner in which you qualified your earlier remarks (unless you think I should do so). I note that the bureaucrats who have since commented in relation to the matter at WP:BN have stated that they would have agreed with your position. The outcome was not what I took issue with however - I trust in future such discussions can be allowed to reach a conclusion before actions are taken. WJBscribe (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Nah, I think that discussion is best archived. I'll be more deliberative and ponderous in the future (as I think I already am being at the SUL thread) and appreciate your feedback. MBisanz talk 19:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC) BN usurp issue <Chatting here, because I dislike the heat developing at BN> I saw your well-reasoned comments at BN. I wanted to run something past you. In the light of the policy wording currently at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#Handling_SUL_conflicts, I'd suggest that the current discussion is not about widening policy, but implementing current policy. It seems that the bureaucrats have long had this discretion. If the policy is wrong or unclear, we should change it, with consensus. Finally, I too object to saying one editor has greater or less worth. The policy basis is "inactive" and a long-term blocked editor is by definition inactive. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I agree that BN seems less a place for friendly good natured disagreement than it used to be. I do think the word "policy" is a bit overused at the moment when we've been dealing with various discretionary areas. The guidelines you link to are just that. They are pretty much the sole creation of bureaucrats describing our own practices and can sometimes reflect the input of very few people: a lot of the content remains as was written by Deskana and I in August 2007 and few have made significant edits to the page since. For instance, the part your refer to was entirely added by Xeno (to my knowledge without discussion) [1]. No criticism is intended. One of the ways policies evolve on this project is through bold editing to reflect current practice as the editor understands them. It works well on high visibility highly edited pages, but I worry it works less well on these out of the way "niche" guidelines. I actually think the change Xeno made was broader than he may have intended, but it reflected the practice that Xeno (who I think was handling a lot of these requests himself at the time) had adopted. I didn't notice the change at the time, and I doubt many did. I think it would have been better discussed, as my own expansions of the practice in this area were (e.g. [2]), and I would have voiced concerns about the expansion had it been. I don't think it is right to say that "inactivity" is a policy basis. I think we are judging a (blocked) inactive user as worth less than an active user. That is a choice in how we apply our discretion, I don't think referring to a guideline developped by us to describe our current practice works to get around that problem. It creates a circularity that I think is best avoided. I don't know whether those contributing at WP:BN are a representative sample of the community but, until I contributed, they were certainly much less unanimous on the issue than the bureaucrats who had opined. My worries come under two headings: From the guideline: "If the target username has good faith edits which were not immediately reverted, and the account owner has not explicitly consented to the rename, then usurping could cause licensing issues". To my knowledge this has never been fully explored. It should be and a proper answer (in the form an opinion from foundation legal counsel if necessary) obtained at the WMF level. (And to acknowledge the circulaty problem in this context, that bit of the guideline is very likely to be my drafting) The issue above about value judgments. A blocked inactive editor would be easier than a more straight forward active vs. inactive but it is still in my opinion a step too far. I would like at the very least, this to be the subject of a discussion and consensus of the enwiki community, but really I think this is a global issues that requires a global decision. If SUL is to be pursued to its logical conclusion (i.e. no non-SUL account), then we can adjust our practices accordingly. Hope that helps explain where I'm coming from. WJBscribe (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I think it'd be reasonable to ascertain community consensus on some of the issues, but I do think it's really important to damp down some of the growing sense at BN that the crats are seeking to widen their powers. Nothing can be further from the truth. On this particular rename, I've dropped the requester a note in the hope s/he might reconsider. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I agree we need to allay the fears that we're trying to widen our powers, but I'm having trouble thinking of the most appropriate way to do that. Obviously taking a more narrow reading of SUL (and therefore denying more renames) would look like we're not widening our powers, but it would be to the extent we exercise more discretion to avoid controversial renames permitted by policy. It's the same problem in resysopping to the extent that people say we're widening the powers if we read the policy strictly and resysop, but if we don't read it strictly, we're inserting more of our own discretion into the decision making process. MBisanz talk 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Would you both agree with the following consolidated comment... if you do, I'll take it to the talk pages of the other active and then inactive crats. I am quite content to do this onwiki - we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be made rigorous to avoid a repetition I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. --Dweller (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with that. MBisanz talk 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'm generally happy with that. I'd prefer the fifth sentence to read "... and for the documentation to be updated accordingly", but would not object to the message being left as drafted. WJBscribe (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I've started playing postman. I'll finish the deliveries later. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Crat timeline {{Bureaucrat timeline}} appears to be broken. Could you fix it? Thanks. MBisanz talk 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Sure. Fixed - and hopefully now won't break at the start of next year. WJBscribe (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I had no idea how it was coded. MBisanz talk 05:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC) WikiProject Cleanup Hello, WJBscribe. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/West.andrew.g Looks like we edit-conflicted; I'll step back and let you finish closing. 28bytes (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC) You go ahead - my Internet connection keeps dropping off - so prob best to let you do the honours! WJBscribe (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC) OK, will do! 28bytes (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Pope Francis / Francis I I would strongly object to you moving this page again per WP:WRONGVERSION. There is no rush and previous time the page was moved edits got spits across two pages. Cheers, —Ruud 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Then I won't move it. But I think this is the wrong call. If you apply, WP:WRONGVERSION the page was protected when it was Pope Francis I. I have no view as to the correct title. I do however believe that admin moves of pages protected against moves should be reverted. Otherwise, we privilege admin over non-admin users. WJBscribe (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I have no opinion on the name either and completely agree TheCoffee shoudn't have moved the page (in fact, that he did not check the talk page before moving a protected page sheds some serious doubt on his ability as an administrator), but it has been. Our duties as administrators should always be to de-escalate the situation and the chaos caused by moving the page again outweighs the feelings of the few people who would have noticed the page was moved, against policy and consensus, while protected. Ideally, TheCoffee should apologize on the talk page, but with the flurry of edits there even that would likely go unnoticed. —Ruud 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC) And if you would move this page again, there might well be more people who "mistakenly" believe you moved the page against consensus than there are believing that TheCoffee did. —Ruud 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) As I have said above, I don't propose to move the page over your objection. I see the logic in your point of view, but I don't agree that it is the right outcome. Leaving TheCoffee's move unreverted incentivises admins to abuse their rights and rely on other sensible admins not undoing them. Improper use of admin rights should be reverted. You recognise that TheCoffee's action was wrong, but block it being undone. I respect your pragmatism, but don't share it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC) On a related issue, do you think the log message of TheCoffee ("Doesn't need a number until there's a second Francis. See Pope Lando.") should be overridden? It seems a bit too opinionated to be displayed to anyone who tries to edit the page. —Ruud 21:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Good point. I hadn't thought of that. To get a new summary in, I've reduced the length of the move protection to 3 months. Hopefully the name dispute will be resolved by then! WJBscribe (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Research on new pope Hi, my name is Mark Kraft, a longtime blogger who was the Business Manager of LiveJournal in its early days, and who subsequently broke a few major stories that got picked up by the mainstream media, such as the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, Iraq , the personal stories of bloggers who stayed behind in New Orleans following Katrina, etc. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia for some time, but I was doing some background research on the new Pope, and I found something rather disturbing in the Argentinian press about the Pope's tenure that I suspect should be added to the bio, in a neutral way. That is why I am contacting you, as you seem to be admin'ing things in regards to his entry. Specifically, I think the bio should mention the following article from La Arena, "El diario de mayor circulación de la región pampeana"... the paper with the largest circulation in the Pampas region of Argentina. http://www.laarena.com.ar/la_ciudad-obispo_poli__vinculado_a__red_de_silencio_-80276-115.html (Translation at: http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=es&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.laarena.com.ar%2Fla_ciudad-obispo_poli__vinculado_a__red_de_silencio_-80276-115.html ) The article mentions that the Church approved a large cash settlement to Sebastián Quattromo, a victim of sexual abuse by Fernando Enrique Picciochi, a Catholic Catechist for the Church at the Marianist College. The college and the Church itself tried to stonewall the disclosure, and apparently tried to use the Catholic institution of silence to prevent Mr. Picciochi from being brought to trial. Here is a translation of the section that by all rights should be in the article on the new Pope: "I then went to the Archbishopric, and I met with a Secretary of Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope), who identified himself as Martín García Aguirre. I raised him the case and the measure that sought to impose the Catholic institution of silence on the victims. . . But I got no response" Turns out that Mr. Picciochi fled to the United States, which had to detain and extradite him back to Argentina, where he has been sentenced to 12 years for multiple incidents of child sexual assault. http://www.infobae.com/notas/672546-.html Mr. Picciochi was apparently residing in California at the time of his detention and subsequent extradition. (See bottom right of first page at: http://www.coxsmith.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/intelliun-104-14202/media.name=/20110919142412017.pdf Frankly, all of these details of the case have led to an actual criminal conviction in a court of law. This is a serious, important incident regarding the new Pope that is far more definitive and proven than the other claims in the article that he might have betrayed fellow clergy earlier on in his career. It is, as far as I can tell, the real story. So, what advice would you have in regards to how it should be told, or if it can be told on Wikipedia, and if so, how? I don't personally care about the credit involved, but I certainly do care about the truth of the matter, especially if Church stonewalling helped to shelter a pedophile who was escaping justice in my state and my country. Obviously, as an admin, you would be a great person to approach this thing in a fair manner. I am more than willing to assist with sourcing the material involved. Perhaps I can even find court transcripts, etc. You can contact me directly at markkraft@yahoo.com . Thanks, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.63.189 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Mark. Wikipedia tends not to be a good place for investigative journalism. We have policies that preculde original research and that require articles to be referred to reliable secondary sources. If you want to pursue this, I would suggest that the first step is to interest the mainstream media in your research. It really needs to be published somewhere else before it can be taken up by Wikipedia; were these matters to become the subject of comment in a number of reliable external sources, they would be more likely to come within Wikipedia's inclusion policies. That said, I have no special authority to determine the content of articles - this is a collaborative project. If you would like to propose that content be added to the article, you can suggest it at the article's talkpage, Talk:Pope Francis. If there is a consensus to include the material it can be added. I would suggest reading the following policies first, as I suspect they will form the main pillar of resistance to adding the matters to which you have referred: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Best, WJBscribe (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC) (SUL request) → Apriti Thank You very much for my SUL account. Much appreciated. --Apriti + 12:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Deletion review for Scooby-Doo 3 An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scooby-Doo 3. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. That was six years ago. I suspect recreation is now not controversial, although I only closed the discussion - I did not participate in it. WJBscribe (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC) USURP request Hi, WFBscribe, thank you for your response in my USURP request. I've done an edit in eswiki here. Is enough? Thanks again. :) --Valluco (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Yes. That's fine. I will rename you. WJBscribe (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Renaming information request You have been identified as someone who does a large number of renames. If you could visit meta:Rename practices and explain your renaming practices and policy, we would appreciate the effort. We are making this request to help us better understand local renaming practices as we work towards SUL finalization. Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MBisanz talk 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Forced user renames coming soon for SUL Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC) WP:USURP Hi! Please review my request here. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Sure. I can't see any issues, so you just need to wait 7 days from the time you first notified the target account. WJBscribe (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC) OK, Thank you very much! Faizan -Let's talk! 10:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC) And Will I get a global account? Faizan -Let's talk! 10:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC) You should do. Once you've been renamed, log in with the new name, go to Special:MergeAccount and follow any instructions there. There are a few unattached accounts on other wikis, which won't be included in the global account until SUL finalisation is complete in about a month's time (or you get renames on each of those wikis separately before then). WJBscribe (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC) OK, a last question, that the "SUL finalisation" will be automatic? Faizan -Let's talk! 10:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Yes. That's the current plan. WJBscribe (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Ty.... . Faizan -Let's talk! 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Seven days have passed! Please review my request there! Thanking you in advance. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks! That is a SUL account right? Faizan -Let's talk! 11:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Go to Special:MergeAccount and follow the instructions there to make it a global account. WJBscribe (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC) But I get this message then:"No accounts could be confirmed using this password." Faizan -Let's talk! 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC) That makes sense. You don't have any accounts with the name on any other project. You have successfully created a global account however, see [3]. At end of the month, when SUL is finalised, the unattached accounts will be automatically renamed out of the way. In the meantime, you have a global account and can use it on every wiki without unattached accounts. WJBscribe (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Eating me up! Really! The link you gave me above does not even contains my en.wiki account! Lol! And when I go to other wikis, I am asked to create an account! Just a bit more guidance please! Faizan -Let's talk! 11:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC) The link I have you does include your account, under the heading "List of local accounts" (it is the only account in that section). Try visiting Wikisource [4] by way of example. If you're not already signed in there, you will be able to login with your username and password (you won't need to create an account) Everything is in order, don't worry about it. WJBscribe (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC) After the finalisation? Under the same password? Will my contributions be retained? If yes, how? Faizan -Let's talk! 12:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC) No, now. Go log into Wikisource as Faizan using your own password. That should work. After finalisation, you will also be able to do that on the wikis that currently have unattached accounts in the way. WJBscribe (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Ok WJB! Love you! Sorry for asking so many questions! Faizan -Let's talk! 12:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC) But I fear that I may be renamed like "Faizan-en" on other unattached wikis! Is that true? Faizan -Let's talk! 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC) It is the unattached accounts that will be renamed. Accounts that are part of the global name (enwiki, now enwikisource) will not be renamed. WJBscribe (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC) No edits exist for this previous "Faizan" at all, on most projects, so cannot I get a username of "Faizan" for all projects? Just the last query, I know me disturbing you a lot, Eh..? Faizan -Let's talk! 12:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC) If you wanted, you could visit each project with an unattached account and request usurpation of the unattached account. But it would be a waste of time as this will all happen automatically when SUL is finalised at the end of the month. WJBscribe (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Oka! Thanking you, meet you after finalisation. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Username Usurpation : E3's Account → E3 Hello, This concerns a request that I have placed about a Username Usurpation [5]. I am replying here as I was not quite sure if I should edit the aforementioned section or on this talk page. Sir, while reply was "Are you able to provide confirmation that this used to be your account? It only made one edit (6 years ago), so that doesn't give us much to go on.", yet I have not claimed that the account is mine, I saw that the account was old and unused and as I am commencing a fresh start on Wikipedia and I use the username "E3" on multiple platforms, I placed my request "to regain access to an old account and put it into effective use". I hope I did not cause a misunderstanding or confusion. Please let me know if I could be of assistance. Best regards and thank you. E3 (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC) When you said you wanted to "regain access" to the account, that suggested you previously had access to it, which is why I asked what I did. You say you are commencing a fresh start, did you used to edit under a different name? You don't have to tell me, but it might help with your request, as your current account is very new and we usually only allow usurpation of inactive accounts for established contributors (so we know the names will be put to good use). WJBscribe (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Hello. Yes, you are absolutely right. I merely wanted to imply my purpose, i.e., if the account is of no further use, would it be possible for me to gain access to the username. Sorry for the inconvenient misunderstanding. And yes, I used to edit under a different name, I have sent you an e-mail with a link to the old account. Best regards and thank you. E3 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Noted. I will rename you. WJBscribe (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your much-appreciated assistance. Best regards E3 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Rename User:Weapon X (de)? In light of Single User Login finalisation, would you like me to rename you to "Weapon X" here, so all your contributions are under the same name on each project? WJBscribe (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Yes please!  :-) (...I allready send an email to User:Dweller to do that and other things) Thanks very much !!! -- Weapon X (de) (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC) No worries, will do. You'd best log out as it can confuse the system if we rename users who are logged in. I will rename you in 5 minutes. WJBscribe (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Done! You will need to go to Special:MergeAccount (possibly from dewiki) to add the account to your global one. WJBscribe (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Done! That was easy! ;-) -- Weapon X (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Could you do the same for my bother? Renaming User:Projekt2501 (en) to User:Projekt2501? He then will create the global user account by himself... -- Weapon X (talk, contribs) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Done. WJBscribe (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks very much !!! :-) -- Projekt2501 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Username change Hey I listed my request to change my user name. But, you didn't operated my next request as the earlier name was listed (as shown by bot). Please, change my next request. Change my user name. Thanks:)Prashant talk 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Appreciation Thank you for fixing my user name change! --VanBuren (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC) RfB/Addshore Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Addshore Q5A: Check out Question 9. BTW, I think 5 was a huge miss. Glrx (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Too late, never mind. Glrx (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for promoting me. I will do my best to be a good admin and make you proud of me. Best wishes. --Meno25 (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Tenmei → Enkyo If you have time, please notice the reasons for a username change here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC) A simple name change was done here --User:Enkyo2 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Austria Hungary I do not understand why you have protected this article as there is little vandalism and this article is not very popular. Ritviksaharan14.96.58.43 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC) It was protected due to edit warring over a content dispute. I see little sign that the dispute has been resolved, but have unprotected the article anyway. If the edit warring continues, the page will be protected again. WJBscribe (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Ideas Hi Will. Based on some recent discussions I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. If you have time, you are most welcome to weigh in and develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Usurpation request Can you please complete my usurpation request from Surfer → Surfer43? I regret usurping in the first place from Surfer43 → Surfer because every time I want to go edit another Wikimedia Project, I have to log in again. Coming back, same thing. You've completed other requests recently. Mine is a no-brainier because both accounts agree. Thanks, Surfer43 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Wow, I'm in my old account Surfer43 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Username change Can you please change my username? Link → Vijay [talk] 21:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) A brownie for you! Thank you for granting the Bot flag to HasteurBot. Hasteur (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Adminship? Hi. I'm considering running for adminship again next month. It's been a few years since I last ran and I think I've grown and matured as a person in that time. While you and I have occasionally disagreed, I value your opinion and guidance. I can also certainly appreciate (probably more than most) the time and dedication that you've put in here. While I doubt it would happen, I would certainly welcome any support in the process. :-) Hope you're well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your note and kind words. As you say, we haven't seen eye to eye at times, but I think diversity of opinions is a good thing and that we should try to avoid parts of the project becoming an "echo chamber". My main concern with you being an administrator is that at times I think you act as if your way is the only way, and can be overly dismissive of other views/criticism. I haven't looked at your recent editing, and wouldn't judge you solely on past issues. If you are willing to approach the tools in a more measured way than in the past, taking more time to reflect before acting and being more responsive to the views of others (even when you disagree with them strongly), I'd have no issue with supporting an RfA from you. WJBscribe (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Crat discussion observation Nice summary of some of the issues in the Trappist RfA. However, while you may be familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right, it is possible some 'crats might have missed it. Given that it is so central to the issue, it might be worth mentioning. (Oddly, I lean toward acceptance, and the very real possibility of the new user right might weigh against that choice, but I think the 'crats should be fully informed.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you - I have added a link just in case. All users are of course welcome to offer comments on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk/Bureaucrat discussion and I have added a note to that effect. WJBscribe (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC) This should be no big deal, right? RfA is way too much of a thing these days! Guy (Help!) 15:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry for intruding, but I was curious how late !votes were taken into account. The RfA technically closed at 00:00 on September 16, but there were 5 or 6 supports and 1 oppose after the deadline. If they are not taken into account it changes the % support by about 0.6%, namely it lowers the percentage in favor below 70%, which is why I was curious. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Comments are welcome after the stated end time, which is in effect the earliest that an RfA will be closed. WJBscribe (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification and for the thoughtfulness and care you are putting into this decision, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I read in your comments that you are weighing the extent to which comments did or did not express reluctance or uncertainty. You might perhaps want to consider the difference between oppose commenters saying, on the one hand, that they were unsure about their oppose, and saying, on the other hand, that they felt bad about opposing but were nonetheless comfortable about their position. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC) all four legs or none at all WRT the issue of "all or none" I would offer an analogy: A nation offers licenses to be a smith - gold, silver, black etc. The license allows a person to work in any of those fields - even though most only work in one material, and are not truly "jacks of all trades". If a person says "of course I will work in every metal", whether or not they actually will do so, their license is given. Woe betide the person who says "I will only work really in only one metal, because that is what I know" then they attract opposition. Not a single "oppose" of note was based on any actual actions undertaken by Trappist, and a small number used "civility" as their reasoning (I note that calling a hypothetical example given by an editor "bosh and twaddle" (Teddy Roosevelt phrase) was, indeed, found actionable by ArbCom recently - but I think the civility case against Trappist is weak). Collect (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Note: I would like to know precisely how many RfAs are closed precisely at 00.00 Universal Time. I suggest that in that direction les madness -- very few are started at that time either. And the proposed new "right" does not yet exist in Wikipedia, and I suspect it would take months to get a new specific flag added. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Good point. I was taken aback at how fast the RfC was proceeding, but even if approved, there's probably quite some time until implemented. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) As far as I recall, and I don't have time right now to check back, bureaucrats have the discretion to extend the RfA period in order to attract more participation in an attempt to establish consensus in a deadlocked situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC) RfA for technical support Hi, Wikid77 here. I am ready to run for admin, to support the complex protected templates and wp:CS1 Lua script modules which I have written, but also help to solve other technical issues and wp:Help_desk requests to clarify deleted articles. It is partly (mostly) my fault that the complex Lua Module:Citation/CS1 (talk·hist·links) is working (to support 2.1 million pages) but has no dedicated admin, because when I wrote that Lua module (and 70 updates), based on User:Uncle_G's cite prototype, I underestimated how the enormous complexity would be a burn-out for other editors or admins. You see, years ago, I equated adminship with "full-time manager" and I did not understand how admins can take occasional wikibreaks, and share the workload. However now, I realize how staying here for years as a volunteer computer scientist and creating numerous complex templates (Template:Convert/spell) or large Lua modules was also increasing the mindboggling difficulties for technical admins, to read what I am saying for {editprotected} updates but then fear installing those changes to complex tools I have written. Instead, it will be easier if I accept the duties of admin, and help side-by-side with other technical admins to maintain all these tools which other users depend upon. Also, with me solving more of the template/Lua problems, it will free the time of other admins to work on JavaScript gadgets or the wp:WMFLabs tools, or bug reporting for the wp:VisualEditor. Again, I am sorry I wrote these highly complex templates/modules but did not take the time to assume admin duties to support them, when I have been here the whole time, watching from the sidelines(!). I have an indef topic-ban (2 years) in wp:RESTRICT (re: Murder of Meredith Kercher) which I have left as a strong reminder to work in general consensus with numerous other editors, or face censure by them. I have asked for a wp:REQUESTNOM, but I might just self-nom, if needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Heya Wikid77. Have you also taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators? Just that it's another avenue to look into for a nominator. Best of luck, — -dainomite   16:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I have contacted User:Kudpung, and we plan to talk again in a few days about preparations. -Wikid77 16:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Sounds good, I look forward to your RfA Wikid. — -dainomite   17:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Barnstar The Socratic Barnstar To WJBScribe, thank you for your careful evaluation of the recent RfA. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Unfinished usurpation Hallo, I have successfully usurped username Ivannah (with 2 "N"s in the middle) on 26th of Sept., but en.wiki is still not attached to my global account... Could you please find out why? Thank you very much. --Ivannnah (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) The usurpation appears complete. You not should still be editing as Ivannnah (talk · contribs) - you should be able to log in as Ivannnah (talk · contribs) on enwiki instead (with the same password you used for Ivannnah (talk · contribs)). If you can, simply got to special:MergeAccount after doing so to complete the finalisation of your global account. WJBscribe (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Favor Could you tell me who the original creator of Archive.is was? The page is now deleted, and I don't need it un-deleted. But if checking this requires restoring the complete revision history, or if it's just easier to do that, feel free to restore it to my user space. FYI This was restored once to a userspace (not mine), but I believe the complete history is not present there, so I can't determine who the creator was. Thanks in advance if you have a moment for this. equazcion → 23:59, 29 Oct 2013 (UTC) It appears that the complete history of the page is now at User:Lexein/Archive.is - there are no deleted revisions left at Archive.is. Poeticbent seems to have created it after making this edit. WJBscribe (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Ah I see, thanks for checking into that for me :) equazcion → 00:35, 30 Oct 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. WJBscribe (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Barnstar The Admin's Barnstar Many thanks for efficiently clearing a big backlog at WP:RFD. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks. You're welcome - I used to close a significant proportion of RFDs, although that was admittedly a while ago.... WJBscribe (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC) +1 I came here to give the same barnstar. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Gratitude Respected Will "WJBSCRIBE", thanks for placing your ({{TempUndelete}}) to Article Ape is a Punished Man. Your guide and patronage would shine me more and am expecting this light from you. Thanks once again.Nannadeem (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis Damn, shall have to redo my votes. All that time wasted! Who am I kidding, I basically just followed NuclearWarfare's guide with a couple of tweaks... WJBscribe (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Heh. NW (Talk) 15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Sorry I guess I should've just let you log in and resign it. Usually IPs doing that are up to no good.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC) No worries - quick spot. You'd reverted it before I realised I wasn't signed in! :-) WJBscribe (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) recreation of How to write Simple English articles I'd like to recreate it as a redirect to Simple English Wikipedia. —rybec 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC) The RfD discussion doesn't prevent you from doing that. The basis for deletion was primarily the cross-namespace nature of the redirect, and your new proposed redirect is not a cross-namespace one. Of course, there's nothing to stop your recreated redirected being nominated for deletion, but it would require a fresh consensus to delete it. WJBscribe (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks, that's what I was hoping you'd say. —rybec 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Protection of Langley Grammar School You protected Langley Grammar School in 2007 due to the page being unwatched. It seems that either unprotecting it (six years is a long time) or putting it on pending changes (due to the low activity) would be appropriate. Cheers. Crazynas t 10:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Endorsing this request on behalf of WP:WPSCH. We have eyes on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Absolutely fine. Have unprotected - I restored the protection because vandalism wasn't being spotted, but if people are now watching the page it hopefully isn't needed any more. WJBscribe (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC) pjahr → Przemek Jahr Hello. Other Wikies make no problems, what am I to do to rename at en: Wikipedia ([6])? pjahr (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC) The problem was that you didn't explain that the global account "Przemek Jahr" already belonged to you. I see you have now made a request on the correct noticeboard and will take a look at it. WJBscribe (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)