This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I didn't check the logs of the page, just the edit history. As the last edit was one where you tagged the pages for deletion, I deleted them. To avoid this happening in future, remember to remove speedy tags from pages you ask admins to restore. WjBscribe19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJBScribe, thanks for helping me out with the Shyam username rename. When I try to rename the English "Shyam" to e.g. "Shyam (renamed)", I get the following message: "Cannot rename user Shyam locally as this username has been migrated to the unified login system." I can understand that it may not be possible in the end to move श्याम to Shyam, but if there is a way, I'd love to know! Thanks for helping me out. --Wolftalk | हिन्दी | বাংলা15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
At the moment it is impossible to rename accounts to a name that has been reserved as a result of someone unifying their global login. This issue has been reported to the developers (see bug #13507) and will hopefully be fixed soon, when such renames can be performed. I don't know what volume of requests you're getting, but I've started keeping a list of requests affected by the bug (see Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL) for when the bug is sorted - you may want to do the same. WjBscribe19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Eybot
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am going to do a name change for an editor who wants to disappear. I understand that you created a naming convention for such circumstances. Could you reply on my talk page or through my email what that naming convention is? Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no naming convention as such, I tend to use a name like "Renamed user" or "Former user" for accounts of people who've asked to vanish. Anything generic will do. WjBaway23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
This is all your long service leave, WJBscribe. The Cabal won't authorise another break for a couple of years now :) Have fun, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I did have a good break. I'm back with renewed enthusiasm both for content editing (which has long been suffering) and for a more relaxed approached to other responsibilities... WjBscribe02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
(followup) Just FYI, I think this is all resolved. KellyAna has been indef blocked, Antigone28 is inactive, and IrishLass0128 was blocked for two weeks, but then contacted me off-wiki and asked to simply have her account listed as retired. There's an anon that we're keeping an eye on, and if you do want to see the latest, that's at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KellyAna and the related talkpage. But I don't think any further action is needed from you. But welcome back! :) --Elonka02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Random question
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was reading the thing about all the rights various classes of users can have and I just wondered... The table that shows who can do that shows that Sysops can do some things that Bureaucrats cannot. That doesn't make sense. Are you both a Sysop and a Bureaucrat simultaneously? I'm confused... J.delanoygabsadds01:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
WJBscribe is both, yes. Usually users need to be admins already in order to be bureaucrats (who can actually make themselves admins, so it's no point in making a user a bureaucrat only). Mostly bureaucrats just do the repetitive background stuff (that's why the user group was created after all) - both classes are separate though. -- 213.152.52.38 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Adminbots
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
And I'd like to thank you for participating in that thread. It was beginning to feel like an uphill battle for a while there. I am confused about one thing though. You have said "A lot of them contained only one revision - in due course those would have been deleted by RedirectCleanupBot." - I was under the impression that many of the redirects contained only one revision because they were redirects created by pagemove actions. And because they are pointing at articles that actually exist (as do all pagemove redirects), then RedirectCleanupBot won't touch them in any case. I think a lot of confusion is being caused by three separate uses of the word "orphaned":
(1) Orphaned talk pages (CSD#G8) are talk pages where the corresponding page does not exist or was deleted.
(2) Orphaned redirects are redirects pointing at deleted or never-created titles. Also called "broken" redirects. Possibly this is a new and incorrect definition of "orphaned".
(3) Orphaned pages are pages not linked to from anywhere else (ie. "what links here" shows nothing). This usually refers to articles not linked from other articles, but can refer to other namespace pages as well. These links from somewhere else are also called backlinks. Redirects can be orphaned in this sense (looking backwards at what connects to it) as well as in the other sense (looking forward at what it connects to).
In this case, East718 (though really this traces back to Misza13) considers it acceptable to ignore backlinks from Wikipedia and User namespace (more details at the ANI thread) for pagemove talk page redirects, and thus has a more liberal interpretation of what "orphaned" means. Does this all sound right? Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Until you pointed it out I hadn't considered the possible meanings. I meant to say that those talkpages which redirected to deleted pages and contained only one revision would be deleted by RedirectCleanupBot. If my comment reads as if it suggests more, that may be a problem - I meant only (2) in your points above. In my opinion East718's questionably speedy deletions go well beyond redirects. I also warned him that I consider his deletion of images problematic. In particular that {{fair use disputed}} tags seem to be being ignored. This has the effect that an image can be tagged for deletion by BetacommandBot and (even if a human queries the deletion), be deleted by East718's deletion script without a human mind every considering the question. I was then and remain doubtful of his claims that he could possibly be reviewing the number of images his bot processes. WjBscribe02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, well, I don't want to get into that too much. I think East does good work, so the comments you and Werdna are making are a bit troubling as all I wanted was an agreement from Misza, East and anyone else running such scripts, to leave redirects alone. I do agree that a wider review of deletion script activity is needed, but let's not antagonise the people running them. BTW, your "A lot of them contained only one revision - in due course those would have been deleted by RedirectCleanupBot." comment is still there and may be misleading people. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Corrected that sentence. I find it interesting the amount of people who are willing to criticise Betacommand's bot's tagging and yet how few will follow through to check who ends up deleting the images (a far greater problem IMO). If you think East does good work we will have to agree to differ. I rarely express the view that an admin is incompetent, but I have to admit that I'm finding that conclusion hard to resist in this case... WjBscribe04:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Name Change
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi,
I've placed my username to be changed back to my former user Yun-Yuuzhan in the usurp Changing Username page is there any chance of allowing it to proceed. Terra16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have been away for about a week without internet access. I would hope other admins might keep that page updated - alas not. WjBscribe02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
London Meet 13th April 2008
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Is there any peculiar reason my request (Mogador99 → Mogador) is not taken in charge ? Have I anything to do more precisely ? Thanks to tell me if there is anything wrong in my request. Regards, Mogador99 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Case
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there, WJBscribe. Thanks for reversing the rejection. I do appreciate it, a lot. In regards to the still open RFCU, I have been told by administrator Doc glasgow that I cannot close the RFCU even if I wanted to. He wrote on a recent ANI thread, "Plus the person who instigates an RfC is not permitted to close it (even if they wanted to)"[1]. I am not sure why the RFCU is still open as it's been mostly dormant for a long time. In any case, I thank you for reversing the mediation decision and I very, very much look forward to IZAK accepting the case so that we can begin formal mediation and work out the personal and professional differences between us. Bstone (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Very. I am quite excited by this as this is by far the most stressful thing in my editing here in Wikipedia. Once it is resolved I am very much looking forward to returning to a full time editor. Bstone (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am in favor of keeping it at Mediation Committee, per ArbCom suggestion and Ryan's most gracious offer to mediate. Bstone (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Hi WJBscribe, thank you for your notification on my home project. Unification of account "Kju" was now revoked, so please go ahead and rename "Kju (de)" into "Kju". Thank you. -- Kju (de) (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, thank you very much for your info at my Slovak talk page. My global account was deleted and I would like to finish my global account now, so please help me :) --Wizzard (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have renamed WizzardSK to Wizzard. The contribs you made briefly as Wizzard are now at Wizzard (renamed). You can now unify your global login again. WjBscribe21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Usurpation
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Thank you for your message.
Edits until now with Yuma_en account are not a lot, and the usurpation already made possible for me to login with global Yuma username...
The time of everyone of us is precious, I can't ask you (and stewards) to waste a single minute for such irrelevant matter! :) I got a complete SUL on all wikis now, and all seems working well, that's good enough for me!
Same thing for me; I don't need the rename. My SUL is almost complete in every wiki (just 1 left), and I have not made many contribs with my account here (User:RacsoES). Thanks for your help! --Racso (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the really nice and encouraging note. I have had a few offers in the past. I was initially convinced I was certain to go down in flames, but as I've received more encouragement I've begun to suspect that's not the case. Still, I would use the tools so little. I'd rather participate in AFDs than close them. The Did You Know project tends to need its helpers more at T:DYK/N than at T:DYK itself. It would be nice to see deleted revisions, but... the other factor is just my real life. Sometimes, and pretty unpredictably, I'm away from my computer for as much as a week. I worry about accepting an RFA and not knowing if I'll have to go MIA halfway through. Not really fair to people with legitimate questions. So, I'm not opposed to it, but since it's true that I don't need the tools, I'm not in a rush either.
As for the general point about the slowing of candidates... I've thought about the causes for this. I suspect it's largely cyclical, and partially a reaction to rising standards, but also driven by such factors as better bots lessening the need for vandal fighters; AN and ANI being adequately staffed at all hours of the day; DRV being a fairly consistent workload that's seen to by a small but very fair-minded group of admins (though I wish Xoloz was active again); the consistency of DRV that keeps AFD running pretty smoothly (it seems to me that people don't make crazy closes as often as they once used to, because they know they'll be swiftly overturned). In other words, while Wiki is still growing, I actually think it's scaling pretty well, and while we always need new blood, I'm not sure we need to promote at the levels of years past for everything to stay healthy and humming along. --JayHenry (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Did You Know is interesting - the updating of the templates run smoothly until it doesn't, which can happen at any time. Having people who can respond if they notice updates are overdue is useful, even if they use the tools for nothing else. As to commenting vs. closing AfDs, we're not really short of "regular closers" in the sense of people who close a large number of fairly straightforward debates every day, but there's always a need for people who will take the time to study a difficult debate to close and come to a sensible interpretation of the discussion. We don't require admins to be full time, the tools should be a help rather than something that chains people to their desks. Frankly I think the questioning at RfA is getting a little silly - but if you did need to absent yourself and felt this unfair to commentators, an RfA could be put on hold or extended until your return.
DRV is an interesting point. Much as I respect Xoloz, he and I could never quite agree on how DRV should run on the occasions we discussed it. The main point on which we don't see eye to eye is what the result should be where a DRV is pretty obviously split in both numbers and arguments so there is no clear consensus. In most such cases, it seems to me Xoloz would be minded to relist (or list) in search of clearer consensus. My problem with that approach is that it is effectively overturning the admin who made the decision in the first place. That person had a unique feel for the discussion or situation and was appointed because the community trusted their judgment. When I close a DRV, I require a positive consensus that the admin in question's action were wrong - if that is not present, the decision should be endorsed. At the moment I'm rather busy with renames trying to smooth the way of this trial SUL implementation. But DRV remains of interest to me. It is resented by many admins who feel that it requires them to get approval for their decisions, rather than putting the burden on those seeking to overturn decisions to show that those decisions were wrong.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts - on topic and off... I don't buy into a need for all admins to be very active and think anyone who is competent and trusted should have the tools should they ever want to make use of them. Sometimes we forget that things run smoothly because a few people are doing a lot of hard work. If those people burn out or their circumstances change, it's useful to have plenty of people to step in. Give it some thought, but I think the question you should be asking yourself is "why not have the tools in case DYK is very overdue or AIV has loads of reports of people actively vandalising and no one is around..." WjBscribe13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How strange - I usually check deleted contribs on these. Must not have done so in that case. It really would be better if these accounts were blocked for spamming, rather than generic username blocks. Anyway, there's still the problem that the name he chose was already taken. He needs to request a name that isn't already taken. WjBscribe14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
SUL
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Given the lack of response, I intend to propose a new criteria for SUL related renames and see if anyone objects. At the moment I'm sorting out the bug 13507 affected requests. It will be my next priority once that is done. WjBscribe22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have requested the deletion of my global account and will get back to you as soon as this was done. Thanks for taking the time to let me know on the Afrikaans wikipedia - RAM 16 April 2008
TEJ --> EivindJ
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks a lot for helping me out! That was far better service than I ever expected ... even finding me on no.wiki :) --EivindJ (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Rename
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I agree that some of them are not so great (the pointy IP questions in particular), but some of the questions you removed are serious in nature. I'm going to add some of the non-joke ones back in, if that's acceptable to you. VanTucky21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict, I was just going to strike my last comment. I decided your decisive response was the right thing to do, it sends a good message and I did ask for it after all. Thanks very much, VanTucky21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. This is a link to a question I raised and VanTucky responded to regarding your removal of spurious questions at the above RfA. If you could review that specific point - although I would understand you waiting for more input prior to any decision. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA participation
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
I appreciate your concerns, but for those of us who don't participate in admin culture as admins, this is the only way to find out such information. A lot of us really want to know where admins stand on Wikipedic issues that concern us. With issues that are clearly important to the class of users who generally participate in RFAs (when to block, when to protect, when and how to close an XfD), the answers tend to come out in discussion. On issues that are completely unimportant to the class of users who generally participate in RFAs (issues pertaining to newbies, unestablished accounts, IPs, and the rights and representation of non-admin users), questions have to be asked outright to get any sort of discussion or answers at all. That's how I feel. Mr. IP (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, I feel that the recently-fashionable concern about questions is overblown. One of the chief necessities for any admin is availability to the non-admin public, and if a one-time gauntlet of questions is too much for them, that in itself should be cause for concern. Personally, I think more questions should be asked. Anything over 100 would be unwieldy, but the current hysteria that we have seen over as little as 20 questions seems rather undemocratic to me. Mr. IP (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And as one more note, I think the characterization of "pretty political" could be applied to a lot of other questions, support votes, and oppose votes that we see at RFAs - stuff that no one has a problem with. The more important a matter is to the admin class and other top users, the less complaint we hear about its political nature. The less important a matter is to the admin class - and what could be less important (or even visible) than the quality of Wikipedia experience for users who don't log in? - the more "political" it becomes and the less appropriate to ask about. In reality, though, the quality of Wikipedia experience for IP users and new accounts is a considerably larger and more important issue than the appropriate duration of blocks, and is more worthy of discussion. RFAs are one of the few areas where ordinary users can gauge the views of soon-to-be-empowered users at Wikipedia, and make decisions accordingly. On the day when an IP user can create a simple redirect, or when article protections are explained in a forthright manner on actual talk pages, I will stop asking political questions. Until then, well, I've got questions! If you have any suggestions for a better way to address these issues, I'm all ears, but I don't really trust VP and its ilk. Mr. IP (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to your response, three notes:
1.) The record low of people willing to go through the process is probably more a result of the ludicrous standards which are applied to candidates. I remember how easy RFAs used to be, comparatively. Rather than removing user voices from the process, a better solution might be an adminship trial program, where users are formally graduated from coaching and given the tools for a limited period, with their status made permanent based on performance.
2.) I will change my questions to a single question and make them seem like less of a litmus test. The new question will be phrased as a query on what the user will do to welcome more Wikipedians into the decision-making processes of the project, something along those lines. I don't want to be shut out of the process entirely.
3.) Not only are less people willing to go through the RFA process, less editors are willing to edit the encyclopedia in general. I feel that this has a lot to do with restrictions on IP editing, new-account editing, and other types of disenfranchisement. In the same way that you feel spurred to action, I feel spurred to action. It's not like I'm doing this for self-aggrandizement. Mr. IP (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
(I'm going out and will be unable to respond further for the time being.) The comment about "less editors" was a lazy way of referring to the decline in the rate of increase. Of course, our boom growth was not going to be sustainable forever, so to an extent the decline may not represent anything at all, but I strongly suspect that it ties in directly to the increasing restrictions on ordinary editors, the increasing number of top-down protections without readily-accessible explanation, the bureaucratization of the 'pedia, and so on. I may be wrong, but I may be right, and either way, I'm certainly not alone in the feeling. The question will be rephrased in a way that addresses the candidate's competence as an administrator - after all, the ability to include users in decision-making processes, and to foster good editing, and to deal neutrally with all good-faith users regardless of status, these are crucial to the tasks of an admin. Mr. IP (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Bstone vs Izak at ANI
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJBscribe: Thank you for all your efforts. I know you mean well and I am not doubting your intentions, but because the picture is much more complex, I have placed a complaint concerning your quick closing of the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 based only on brief one-sided input from a very involved party, User:Bstone, who stood to gain from it. The bulk of my complaint concerns Bstone, see the full post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RfC proposed verdicts ignored. Once again thank you very much for your sincere efforts, but the story is not so simple and it cannot be solved with quick fixes. I have requested that ANI take a long hard look at the BROAD PICTURE. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your complaint at ANI. Again, I ask you to indicate on the Request for Mediation whether you are willing to accept Ryan's offer to mediate your dispute with Bstone. WjBscribe15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete old user after usurpation?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi WJBscribe!
Thanks for handling my usurpation! One question though -- would it be possible to remove the pages User:Pedro Gonnet and User talk:Pedro Gonnet, as Google would still point them to me? There is even still my first account page User:Pedro.Gonnet and User talk:Pedro.Gonnet which also points to the new page... Could you delete this too?
Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 18.04.2008 13:08
Done. If there are other pages in your userspace you want deleted, you can tag them with {{db-user}} which puts them in a category regularly cleared out by administrators. WjBscribe15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, another related question... Now all my signatures on administrative and user talk pages appear in google... Is there a systematic way of getting rid of those too? Or should I just edit the pages one by one?
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 21.04.2008 14:31
Next London meet-up
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good to meet you the other day. I've gone ahead and set-up Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9 for the second Sunday of next month. Same place. Get yourself signed up! (trying to work out if there's going to be enough interest) -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Rename account
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJBscribe, you protected the article Young Americans for Freedom (which is on my watchlist, but which I have not thought of in awhile) back in November of 2007 because of an edit war between a couple of users (one an anon IP, the other a registered account who basically only contributed to that article). It is still protected, even though discussion of the dispute in question seems to have died down (I was trying to broker a solution at one point, but forget why I wandered away from there). Five months is too long to have an article protected for a dispute between a couple of users so I'm hoping you might consider unprotecting it. I will keep an eye on it and try to work out a compromise if a dispute flares back up (I quickly reviewed the basis for the dispute, which was fairly trivial, and I imagine I could help work out an agreement if the argument starts up anew). If edit warring broke out again, you could always re-protect for a couple of weeks. It's possible though the original disputants won't even come back, in which case the protection just prevents the article from being worked on.
One general question since I don't know all that much about article protection: is there some mechanism whereby long-term protections automatically come up for review after a few months? I had basically forgotten about this article and just had cause to run over there and look at something which reminded me that it was under protection (and thus never appearing on my watchlist). Obviously you as an admin putting articles under protection are not necessarily going to remember what you protected and check back to see how things are going. It seems like relatively low-traffic articles which are protected could stay that way for too long if someone does not happen to notice it, and new contributors who want to make changes might not know what to do about it. Anyhow, just wondering if we have something in place to automatically review long-term protections periodically. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected. Protected pages can be reviewed at Special:Protectedpages, which lists protected pages starting with those which have been protected the longest. Some admins will periodically review those protections. It's easy to lose track of what one has protected oneself - it would probably be good practice for us to keep a personal list on a subpage so we can at least check what we've protected ourselves. 5 months is too long - obviously those involved in the dispute will have moved on. I'll try and have a look through Special:Protectedpages and clean out other protections that have been forgotten about. WjBscribe20:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you be interested in helping out with that sort of work? Looking through your contributions, you've be around a good while and have experience of fighting vandals and participating in deletion discussions. If you'd like to apply to become an administrator, I'd be happy to nominate you at RfA. WjBscribe20:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(first paragraph here written before your second comment) Thanks for the unprotection. That seems like a lot to sort through at Special:Protectedpages (there seem to be 500 articles which were fully protected between February 2007-February 2008, though many of those now seem to be unprotected). The idea of admins having subpages for articles they protected is a good one. Maybe some clever computer programmer (which certainly isn't me!) could come up with a way to sort by date of protection articles which are currently under indefinite full or semi-protection (that doesn't seem to happen at the list of protected pages, since some of those are not protected anymore). Anyhow, thanks for your help.
As to adminship, that is something I have been thinking about lately since I think I would make a pretty decent admin (and would be willing to help with the protected pages issues, among other things), however I had not planned to run over to RfA in the immediate future. This actually wouldn't be a terrible time for me to go through the process though (a little less busy with school and teaching at the moment), and it's hard to turn down a nomination offer from such a respected editor. So I guess I'd be willing to go for it if you think it's a good idea. I've participated in a number of RfA's but I'm not sure if there's anything certain one should do leading up to it (for example if going through admin coaching or something similar is important). Also I'd want to make sure that you're sure about nominating me (I've seen you around unsurprisingly, but I don't know if we've ever actually interracted directly or if you've run across stuff I've done before). I think my wiki-track record is very good on the whole (no major gaffes of which I'm aware) and I am very familiar with most of our policies, however I have edited on a number of controversial articles (particularly ones relating to politics in some sense) and always figured that could be an issue if I went through an RfA (I actually think I edit very well in controversial environments, but those who have disagreed with me on certain issues might feel differently).
So even though this is kind of out of the blue (I had to stop and think about this for a little while before typing this up) I think I'm game if you're game, but I'm not sure where to go from there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the sad thing is that RfA makes far too much of a big deal about what is needed to be an admin. I've never been a great fan of admin coaching, it works for some but I suspect mainly the younger users. In some cases it seems to be more about reassuring the nominator about their candidate than teaching the candidate anything. I don't find a need to put to you every possible scenario you might face as an admin. You seem to be doing a sane job - I trust that if you feel out of your depth you'll ask. If you get something wrong it can be fixed. I'd like a lot more people to do what I'm proposing to do: bump into someone on the wiki, spend a bit of time reviewing their contributions and conclude they can be trusted with some extra tools. So if you're still game, I'll write a nomination which you will hopefully accept and we'll see what the community thinks. WjBscribe21:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's do it. I guess I'll try to work up answers to the first three questions so I'm ready to go once you post the nomination. Thanks so much!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've accepted and answered the first three questions. Don't worry, I won't get too stressed regardless of what happens. It should be a good experience no matter what. Do you mind if I make a small tweak to the note you left on my talk page? You accidentally put my name in as the nominator rather than your own (unless that was some elaborate Jedi mind game on your part...hmm...) Thanks again for the nomination!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Usurpation, Whiteknight ← Wknight8111
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello WJBscribe. I know that you turned down my usurpation requestion, and that's okay because I know it's policy. I'm a little frustrated by this situation, as you can imagine, because of the extremely low edit count and edit frequency of the current User:Whiteknight, and because I'm known by that username on every other project.
What I want to ask you is, is there any possible recourse that I can take to acquire this username? The owner doesn't have an email address specified, and he doesn't appear to be responding to his talkpage messages (even though apparently he has been logged-on and editing recently). The developers have been discussing some kind of technical "resolution" to the SUL naming conflicts, should I just sit back and wait for this to happen, if it ever does? Thanks. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am hoping for a review of the local policy - I tried to get community input into the question at Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames, but as you will see participation has been minimal (though the discussion was prominently advertised). At the moment I'm minded to simply set out a proposed change to the policy and pursue that unless there are significant objections. For what it's worth, I think your case is one of the ones where current policy is producing the wrong answer. At the moment I'm chasing up people who need to have their global accounts deleted so we can get around bug 13507. Once that backlog's sorted, I will turn my attention to proposing a new criteria for dealing with SUL-related renames. WjBscribe21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
re unblock of Proabivouc (or whatever)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
No, my reason for unblocking is because the block was not done either with consensus, nor citing WP:IAR. i.e. it was not done within Wikipedia practices. There was an ongoing discussion, and no decision had been made. For a fuller explanation, please see my comment at ANI here. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is, and was, ongoing. Guy was possibly alerted to the fact by the thread above, where comment against a suggested block had already been made. Guy referred to that comment, where he considered that the opinionee's comment was irrelevant since the commenter was in opposition elsewhere with him. That is not a sound reason for ignoring such suggestion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the great work
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just want to say its great to get in touch with a user so high up in the chain here at wiki and i think your nomination of Bigtimepeace guarantees he will become an admin, i mean how many Bureaucrats do you see place a vote let alone nominating? Not many i think.
By the way i saw your comments in regard to the question asked to Vantucky here I couldn't agree more, i dont know what the q was on about or the answer. I think you got to step in again for Bigtimepeace got a q 'Who is better looking? MJ or Britney?' I'll let you take care of that. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
While I agree that the questions are optional and should not be treated as a prerequisite, I think the template should say something to prompt the nominee to at least make sure they are satisfied that the nomination makes the case for them getting the nod. What do you think? bd2412T03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. What do you think about this addition? Do change it/make suggestions - I'm not saying the current form is perfect, just that it gives candidates a better feel for the fact that what they answer is up to them. WjBscribe14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done I also completely agree with you on deleting this stuff. I'm a fairly new user, and am just figuring out how to interact, and even do menial things like indenting this comment. I have, however, looked at the drama for months, and have looked at RFAs for a while. No one has yet given a good reason why these goofy questions serve any purpose other than msassage someone's ego. There are enough valid questions to get a good idea of a candidate, and if not, then look at there work - not "boxer or briefs". Fully support your actions. Glad someone finally took a stand. King Pickle (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge account
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Removal of my question on Bigtimepeace and Milborne One's RFAs
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your reason for the removal of question 11 was:
(→Questions for the candidate: rmv unneccessary question - v little do with someone's competence to be an admin)
as a matter of fact I believe there is a lot to do with someones competence to be an admin. It shows the user's knowledge of WP:NN, WP:RECENTWP:BIO. I admit the third question went a bit too far but the first two were perfectly acceptable. Please get back to me A.S.A.P as I don't know why the questions were removed - Bigtimepeace thought it was an important questionFattyjwoods(Push my button)23:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you really think he thought it was an important question? Or that he was someone on the spot who thought he needed to say that. I really can't see the relevance of your questions. Anyone can revert vandalism, you don't have to be an admin. And the questions aren't meant to be a fishing exercise or an opportunity to air one's favourite Wikipedia policies. I know questions have been asked pretty freely lately but there is a strong belief that the volume of questions is putting off candidates and that bureaucrats need to intervene here. I would be surprised if you really needed an answer to those questions to determine whether or not a candidate is competent to be an admin. I am however willing to be persuaded that I am mistaken... WjBscribe00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for new name
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Working Man's Barnstar
Thanks for changing my user name. You were very fast and efficient. Let me know if you ever are being elected arbcom or admin. Have a great weekend and best wishes. Inclusionist (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Renaming
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi thanks for wanting to help me! I got my global account deleted, and my name changed. Now I'm just waiting for someone to change the accountnames at fi:User:Moberg and no:User:Moberg before I can remerge. :) Or wait, maybe I should remerge NOW? Moberg (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
More renaming
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi WJB, thanks for helping me out! My global account has just been deleted (see here). Could you be so kind as to continue the renaming-process on en:wiki? Once that is done, I will again unify my global account. Thanks! (Dutch Eve) EveNL14:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks, not too worry I have rhino skin. I have to admit that it was a little disheartening to see my attempt at RFA be bludgeoned so badly, but hey the pen is still mightier than the mop right. Besides, it could be that the purpose of my RFA is only to serve as a warning to others..Cheers--Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA SNOW candidate
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Ah, I wasn't aware that non-admins could SNOW RfAs (makes sense, given that admins aren't 'crats and are often seen SNOWing). I'll keep that in mind for the future. Surprised no one else did it. Thanks EnigmamessageReview02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi WJBscribe: Let me state my appreciation for your patience in this drawn out tiresome affair. While neither accepting nor rejecting formal mediation, because User Bstone (talk·contribs) should not be granted those choices first before trying other measues such as at MedCab (he had tentativley agreed to that as well), and with the RfC being closed only on Bstone's hearsay without any input from me as to implementation, it must be noted that in looking over some of User:Bstone's and User Ryan Postlethwaite (talk·contribs)'s past interactions, they have previously had serious detailed contact with each other such as at Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee as recently as January 2008, which makes it imposssible for Ryan Postlethwaite to be neutral in any mediation effort/s involving Bstone. Ryan Postlethwaite should never have made the offer to mediate with Bstone as a party because of this and he (User:Ryan Postlethwaite) should please recuse yourself accordingly. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I can investigate whether another member of the Committee would be willing to take the case, however Ryan offered to take the case despite it falling outside the type of case MedCom usual hears (it being framed largely in terms of conduct rather content issues). If you do not feel that Ryan is a suitable mediator, it may be that the Committee will be bound to reject the case. WjBscribe07:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
IZAK, Ryan and I had some interaction over four months ago about a proposal which hasn't gotten much attention in a long time. That proposal and Ryan and my previous (almost ancient) interaction has absolutely nothing to do with our personal and professional editing issues. I am really wondering why you are putting forth such effort in this area and not indicating if you either accept or reject mediation. Perhaps you may grace us with your opinion soon? Bstone (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
WJBscribe: Once again I thank you for all you care and concern and above all patience. Let me be very clear, I believe that objective unbiased mediation is a wondereful thing but I doubt if it can be accomplished here the way Bstone has handled his attacks against me thus far. Bstone calls his very strong interaction with Ryan four months ago "ancient" yet he has no trouble keeping on the boil all his failed attacks against me for the past three months almost non-stop with obsessive (and "civil" obsession is still an obsession) ANIs, RfCs, RfAs, RfMs, and complaints to various admins not directly involved with me and not going to WP:JUDAISM where these discussions really belong in the first place but Bstone does not like doing that. Such is life. It is a violation of the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV that not just in articles but when anyone will take upon themselves to mediate it must be in a truly neutral fashion between two different users who BOTH have full faith in the mediator's neutrality AND that he has a familiarity with the issues that started and fuel the dispute, namely Bstone's multiple nominations of Jewish synagogues and some schools articles/stubs for deletion, and judging by a review of Ryan's editorial history he has no expertise in those fields and one would hope a mediator would know something about what he is about to mediate and not jump in blindly. In any case Bstone has already listed up front all the points he will attack me with that he has specified at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 (which he chose to "forget" when it didn't go his way) and at User:Bstone/rfcuizak so that noone in their right mind can come to the table to negotiate with a party who is holding the gun of User:Bstone/rfcuizak's allegations to their head as has been pointed out to Bstone a few times by other neutral admins. The fact of the matter remains that the ArbCom dismissed Bstone's claims and his first RfM was rejected, it was only Ryan who wanted to get involved and he would be unable to be neutral given his prior involvement with Bstone in another project, that is no way to resurrect a rejected RfM. The RfC that you closed is important because it proved then that I remain/ed more than happy to fulfil the work of all the hard-working editors and contributors at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Proposed intermediate verdict 2 endorsed by 22 users including myself; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Proposed intermediate verdict 3 endorsed by 8 users including me; and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#Proposed intermediate verdict 3.1 endorsed by 16 users including me, which should take care of any complaints Bstone once had, other than that, his ongoing attacks and manoeuvers for three months now should earn him a block for his violations of WP:POINT, WP:HARASS, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:LAWYER, WP:REICHSTAG and more. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to take a view on the dispute between you. I will investigate whether MedCom is able to offer any other mediators given that this case falls outside the usual range of disputes we handle. If it is not, then your rejection of Ryan as a mediator binds me to reject the case. If someone else is willing to undertake this - you can consider their suitability. Do I understand you to be requiring that a potential mediator is knowledgeable about the Jewish synagogues and schools which were nominated for deletion? WjBscribe17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for the mediator to have any special or unique knowledge other than being an excellent Wikipedian and a good mediator. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, as I understand WJBscribe's question above, he was asking my view, so please allow me to state it, as you are free to state yours. There is no question that when any mediator undertakes to mediate a dispute that that mediator needs to show, based on his editing history, a good working knowledge of the subject that has caused the rift between the conflicting editors, in this case it being triggered by Bstone's nomination of Jewish synagogue and school articles for deletion and even re-deletion, and even refusing all requests to place some minimal notification that he is doing so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, and my intially vehement opposition to his moves. Therefore, common sense, logic, and fairness make at least this requirement obvious. Thanks for asking. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFA
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding your removal of my question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EclipseSSD, I understand why some might see it as being offensive and I won't readd it I just wanted you to know that it did have a point and wasn't trolling. I kind of wanted to see the candidates reaction to something rude and off-topic because as an admin he'd obviously encounter many trolls who would make even worse comments, so please see my comment as a testing of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL though I understand you removing it, I just wanted to make that clear, thanks. The DominatorTalkEdits13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation - I remain of the view that the question was inappropriate. We could test all sorts of stuff that experienced admins could face. Subject them to the very nastiest treatment they might get doing the job. All I can really see that achieving is putting people off running at RfA, which is totally counter to the interests of the project. RfA really shouldn't be an interrogation or contain attempts to trip people up, I think we should be able to discover whether someone is competent to be an administrator without trying to upset them or making the process seems excessively daunting for others considering running. I also worry that RfA is a special environment - people often feel a huge obligation to answer questions - and the candidate could well have felt bound to answer that question (rather than realise this was a test of how he declined to answer it...). WjBscribe17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for the notification about my rename request[5]. I intend to procede as you suggested and will let you know when I'll be ready to complete the renaming process.--DonatusHR (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's my usual account for Wikipedia business <WJBscribe at gmail dot com>. I have no recent emails from you though... WjBscribe01:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
Sorry to bother you with this, but I saw you are an active bureaucrat. There is a pt.wikipedia sysop, pt:User:Fabianopires[6], who wishes to usurp the account Fabianopires (talk·contribs); this is an impostor vandal. The problem is, Fabiano's English is close to non-existing, so he's not comfortable in doing the request himself according to WP:CHU. Would it be possible to bypass this step? I can ask him to provide some sort of confirmation of this request, if you wish - I'm a bureaucrat on Commons and I know that we have to be careful with these requests nowadays :). Regards, PatríciaRmsg21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you, thank you. Like some others, I had been limping along with a lowercase last name for too long. Many thanks WJBscribe for fixing my username and so quickly. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mufka has suggested that as an anti-vandalism bot, Pseudobot should perhaps run without the bot flag. I am not well-informed in policy on flags, so just pass on Mufka's comment to you since AFAICT it was you that set the flag in the first place. Remove or leave it as you see fit :) Pseudomonas(talk)19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
quickie
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There's a eswiki sysop who requested a username change (USer:Humberto, Mex to Humberto) link [7] but the renaming was refused. Would it be too much problem looking up why? Such user made only 4 edits since 2004 and the link above said he was contacted and didn't answer. That is the last account Humberto needs to fully unify all his accounts. -- m:drini20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
My reasons for rejecting that request are here. Aside from the formalities - it doesn't appear the account was notified of the request [8], it has made a non trivial edit to an article [9] which brings it outside what the community has so far agreed for usurpations. My attempt at getting a feel for how much the community would agree to bureaucrats extending the range of accounts that qualify for usurpation for SUL compliance hasn't been very informative - Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames. I've decided to simply announce some new rules and see if anyone objects. That request is one which I would be proposing to perform. WjBscribe20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Request For Consideration
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I put an RfC on the Oxford Round Table discussion page regarding a questionable link and no one has left feedback. Has it been posted correctly or should I just go for mediation? PigeonPiece (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have done everything correctly. It might be worth giving it a few more days to see if anyone comments. WjBscribe08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Input needed...
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
...in regards to this conversation. I know you're an admin at Commons and I'm not sure of the answer to Marmaduke's question. Would you mind answering because I'm not that familiar with Commons' policies and I can't see one of the images in question because it's deleted. Thanks. APKyada yada19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The rules are the same as here - looking at one of the pictures: Image:ThaddeusLeavitthouse.jpg, the problem is lack of a copyright tag. We need to know that the right's holder has released the image under the GFDL. At the moment it isn't clear if permission is just for Wikipedia to use the image or if it's being made available for everyone to use under a free license. Can talk him through the image licensing (the templates are the same on Commons...). WjBscribe20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I've uploaded pix on Commons before, but in this case I wasn't sure if her cousin needs to be the one to upload it. I'll link this conversation to Marmaduke so he/she can see what needs to be corrected. APKyada yada21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The first step is to make sure the owner of the picture agrees to release the image under the GFDL - that they understand anyone can modify or reuse the image for any purpose (including commercial ones) provided they give proper credit. Ideally the cousin should email <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> giving proper permission. The standard form is below. WjBscribe21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I had uploaded those two images. They were taken with a digital camera and then sent to me by a family member. Is it necessary to have the cousin write in or can Commons take my word for their release? Many thanks for your help!MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Having the email on file would be the best option, but may not prove necessary. Does you cousin understand that they are agreeing to anybody using the images - not just for their use on Wikipedia? You need to explain on the image pages what terms they are licensed under. The deletions have happened because they are missing a copyright tag (e.g. {{GFDL}}). As to whether a logged email with the foundation is necessary, view vary but some administrators may insist on it. You could however wait and see whether this is asked of you. But you do need to make sure they have the correct licenses. WjBscribe01:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To permissions-commonswikimedia.org
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER
Many thanks for clarifying that for me. I've found it somewhat confusing when the forms come up in Commons on how to proceed, and what to fill in. I will have another look. I would really like to use these two images if at all possible. Just a dumb question: can one upload files on wikipedia only, and not on Commons? And, if so, is it easier to simply upload to wikipedia (I assume that this means that the image can't be used elsewhere then so the snafu involving copyright isn't as complex. But I may well be wrong in my understanding). In any case, thank you for taking the time to help me with this, and thanks also to Agnostic for bringing it to your attention.Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have posted this in the wrong spot, but could you let me know at some point whether in order to try to upload those same images again, I should attempt to do so to wikipedia itself, or to commons, or how exactly you would suggest proceeding. Thanks again for your help! Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't spot your follow up question - this page gets quite busy sometimes. You certainly can upload images to this project instead of Commons, but the requirements are no different. The advantage of uploading images to Commons is that they can be used by any Wikimedia project. Either way, the images will need to have the correct licensing template. WjBscribe08:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Will,
When I first joined the English Wikipedia, I registered myself under the username "Eldads" because "Eldad" seemed to be occupied. I believe the person who registered under that name has had no contributions. Could you please help me change my user name, in compliance with my user name in Hebrew and all the other Wikipedias?
"Eldads" can remain (as a redirection), but I prefer to have "Eldad" as my main user name. If it's not too much to ask, please leave me a message on my Hebrew Wikipedia talk page, so that I know that you have addressed my request (of course, if it's easier for you, you can also send me email). Thank you very much in advance, Eldad (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
PS. I'm also a sysop in the Hebrew Wikipedia. I was referred to you by one of our Bureaucrats, Magister. Much earlier today, I referred my request to Redux, but as I'm not sure he's around, I've just turned to you as well. I hope you're ok with that. Eldad (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Will, I'm trying to complete the SUL project (as it turned out yesterday that in WikiCommons there existed an "Eldad", yet with no contributions). Therefore, the only place where I'm still registered under the name "Eldads" is WikiCommons. I posted a request here, but I'm not sure it's the right place. Could you please have a look there? If usurpation requests should be submitted elsewhere, I couldn't find where. Thanks in advance, and hope I'm not bothering you too much. Eldad (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime, Patricia took care of my request and now I'm "Eldad" also on the Commons. I completed the SUL project today in the early afternoon. Does it mean that I can now log in to any Wikipedia as "Eldad" with my current password, without the need to register first? (I believe it does, but I'll give it a try in the late night hours). Thanks a lot for your help so far. Eldad (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Checkusership
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Following discussion at WT:RFA, the new Requests for checkusership process has provisionally been implemented, and we are looking for a test case to see if the new process is worth keeping. Would you be interested in running for checkusership (since you are an experienced, trusted editor and a bureaucrat)? WaltonOne13:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
WJBscribe has previously indicated to me that he does not have the technical knowledge required to do justice to the CheckUser tool. --Deskana(talk)13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not like adminship, bureaucrat or even oversight, which is mostly just using common sense. You need to have a good knowledge of how IP addresses, proxies and all of those kinds of things work. Not everyone does, even if they are in a very trusted position. I'd suggest to Walton to ask people who are into looking at sockpuppet reports, checkuser clerks, people who run bots (that aren't AWB or simple clones), people with computing backgrounds, checkusers on other projects - they are more likely to have good knowledge of things like IP addresses and related computer skills. Majorly (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you confidence, especially from Walton (last I checked, I thought you were after my head). But Deskana is right - I believe that being a checkuser requires not only community trust but also a high level of technical knowledge to properly interpret the data. I may not be clueless in that area, but I think there are others with far more appropriate knowledge. The time commitment on my part, not only to act as a checkuser but to expand my skill base to be a good checkuser just isn't possible at the moment in addition to what I do at the moment. As it is, I find my lack of time to contribute to articles rather embarrassing - having checkuser responsibilities would only make that harder. If you're looking for a test candidate, I don't think I'm the right choice. WjBscribe01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This request can be done right now. Also, do you believe that, for the purposes of SUL, an editor may usurp a name on his wiki, and then claim that name in other wikis? Or must he be an established editor with that username on his local wiki in order to claim the SUL account? seresin ( ¡? )23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A special thanks to you for your nomination and support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I really appreciate your offer to nominate me and am glad I wandered over to your talk page a week ago to ask for a page unprotection (so far so good on that front by the way). I'll take some time to familiarize myself with the tools but look forward to helping out with admin stuff in the weeks (and indeed years) ahead. Hopefully I'll do right by your nomination.
I also wanted to point out - belatedly - the hilarity of your line, "Aside from an apparent need to use his username to boast about the size of his clock..." in your nominating statement. That bit of word play wrapped in a double entendre has led me to believe that you might be terribly clever.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs01:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello WJBscribe, I apologise the late answer. I was busy working. However, thank You for Your notification about my rename request on my German talk page. Since I do not need this account that urgently and due to bug 13507, I no longer want my account to get renamed. Thank You for Your efforts and help concerning this request. I appreciate it. – Have a nice weekend! Best regards :o), Caligari27 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Thanks for your notice. I've just requested to delete my global account. Would you like to rename my username to "霧木諒二"? Best regards. ―Rh-Kiriki (talk) (user:霧木諒二) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, you fulfilled my request for having username RTG [10] but now I cant log on with either username and have tried creating new account RTG and it says account taken.? You can contact me through the simple.wiki [11]. Thank you. 89.204.252.34 (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
