User talk:WJBscribe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

01:21, Tuesday 10 June 2008

Userpage (fr · commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Desk	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help, whether you think I can help you as an administrator or as another editor. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. If you want to ask me about a page I've deleted, please remember to link me to the deleted page so I know what we're talking about. I usually reply to messages here, unless the matter is urgent and I want to make sure you get the reply quickly. Will

Contents 1 Thanx 2 CUU template 3 Anti-vandal fighter 4 WM commons ref 5 My moved account 6 CHU/SUL template 7 All set / Hornetman16 8 Thank you 9 Reminder Sunday Lunchtime 10 my account usurped 11 Thank you 12 Signpost updated for June 2, 2008. 13 Titles 14 COI Noticeboard re Oxford Round Table 15 Regarding SUL global deletion 16 Second Intifada? 17 Thank you

[edit] Thanx

Webwizard works like a charm... Many thanks! --Webwizard (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CUU template

I'm not sure if you've already picked this up, but the "email target username" link which is created in the first save, is linking to the username they already have, not the target username. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that will be my fault from my recent changes to the template. WjBscribe 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd bring it to your attention, and we didn't send emails to wrong people. :) Thanks. Rudget (Help?) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on your response to the CHU req. Rudget (Help?) 14:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-vandal fighter

I was wondering if you might be willing to explain your support for the name Global sysop for the new gobal funtion of Anti-vandal fighter? As I understand it, sysop is the same as administrator, just another term, no difference in rights. The Anti-vandal fighter role does not have full administrator rights, but only a slect subset of those rights. Using the term Global sysop, appears to me, to be a misstatement of the function. Or am I totally out in left field? The term Gobal Sysop should be reserved for someone who actually has global administrator rights, if or when such a thing is ever introduced. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think what we call the right is very significant. The rules for obtaining and using it are far more important. I put my name to all the preference I like best - I do marginally prefer janitor to global sysop I suppose. But global sysop is an informative name as it is the right to block and delete/protect pages across all projects. None of the other names are as self-explanatory. I do think there is a risk of over-obsessing over finding a perfect name rather than developing an understanding of how this right would work if implemented. WjBscribe 09:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that it does not make much difference what we call it, as long as the name does not mislead other users. I also agree that developing an understanding of how this right would work is far more important than what we call it. Thanks again for the reply. I maybe simply over concerned about other users assuming that a "Global Sysop" is a "Global Admininstrator" It is a right that could easily be abused if its user implemented in a language that they did not really understand. But that is a separate issue to be dealt with elsewhere. Thanks again. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WM commons ref

I have removed the implicit reference to WM commons as you requested, but have left the quote, since it was inaccurate and I wasn't offended by it. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka seems effectively to have repeated his insult of June 2.[1] Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and placed Koalorka under ArbCom restrictions (AA-2). With any further violations, he knows he'll be looking at a block. I'm also debating whether or not to place Mathsci under restrictions as well. --Elonka 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My moved account

It is possible that you can close my redirect page from Despairing? — PsY.cHo^!, 11:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure - done. WjBscribe 11:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think that you have misunderstood me. I meant whether you can lock my redirect page (like here). I have used the wrong word. — PsY.cHo^!, 11:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see - done. WjBscribe 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. — PsY.cHo^!, 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHU/SUL template

I was wondering whether there was a template that you used to produce the comments like this: On hold - You will need to ask a steward to delete your global account before you can be renamed locally. Requests can be made at m:SR/SUL.

Or whether you just typed them out. If you want I can bundle them all into a template ({{CUS}}?) for you to save you typing them out every time! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:09, June 6, 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I'm just copying and pasting. Feel free to turn it into a template if you like. WjBscribe 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done: Template (and documentation) can be found at {{CUS}}. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 09:52, June 7, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All set / Hornetman16

Hi Will! Thanks for agreeing to help on this one. Per m:Steward_requests/SUL_requests#User:ChristianMan16, we're about done and the global a/c has been deleted now. Can you possibly do the rename? I'll look after the bureaucracy (if you'll pardon :) ) and ensure the paper trail leads to the new account, and re-block, etc with the correct notices. Thanks again ;) - Alison ^❤ 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for processing my usurpation request. Dave Rogers 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder Sunday Lunchtime

Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10 See you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my account usurped

Hi. I have just seen that you renamed this account. It is my real name. After a vandal did some harassemets and personal attacks 2006 I created these accounts on some wikis, on en.wiki it was Mike Rosoft, who created the account and thrown the password away (see [2]). I wonder now why you renamed it in case of SUL. I really wanted to ask for it in some days as I already unificated the global account with this name, now I see you did it by your own. Did somebody asked for it? It could be important for me to know it, might be the vandal is active again. Anyway, I could log in there today, without that the global account had to be deleted. Please let me know here or on the cs.source or wikisource.org. Thx, -jkb- (cs.source) 10:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Once you unify a global account, only the holder of that name can sign in with that name on any wiki whether the name does not exist. What I did yesterday was to rename all the all accounts here that have the same name as a global account but aren't attached to that account. It allows the global account holder to sign in with that name here, but wouldn't allow anyone else to do so. All of these accounts would have needed renaming at some stage and it seemed more efficient to do them all in one go (there were about 400 of them) rather than wait for people to make the inevitable requests, especially as some users from other projects without good english struggle with making the requests. Does that make sense? WjBscribe 10:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I was surprised only a bit because I thought that it is not possible to rename / usurp an account while the global account exists already. But anyway, now it has been done without I had to request, it works - so I thank you on this way once more. -jkb- (cs.source) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't possible to rename an account that is attached to a global account, or to rename an account to the same name as a global account. It is however possible to rename accounts that have the same name as a global account if they aren't attached to that account. And you're welcome :-) WjBscribe 14:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, :-), -jkb- (cs.source) 14:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 08:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

I raised this on WT:RFA and nobody seemed to mind. Simply south (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps it would be better if the titles were part of the tables rather than separate headers. Having the separate headers made the transclusions rather messy on the bureaucrat noticeboard. WjBscribe 18:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done that for the RFB table. If i did it for the RFA able, do you think it would mess up tangobot? Simply south (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect tangobot would just remove it on its next update. WjBscribe 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead. No testing possible although if it does muck up it can surely be undone. Simply south (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You were right. Do you know how to add it permanently there, without mucking up the bot or it getting removed? Simply south (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you'd have to ask Tangotango (talk · contribs) - unfortunately he isn't very active any more. It may be time for a new bot monitoring RfA and RfB... WjBscribe 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI Noticeboard re Oxford Round Table

Could you take a look at the COI noticeboard? Your comments on Nomoskedasticity's evidence that User:PigeonPiece has a full-blown COI would be very helpful. Personally, I think the case is pretty open and shut, but it needs some admin input. In addition, Nomoskedasticity and I were both given COI notices on the ORT article merely because we have posted at the Chronicle forum thread. Both of us have long since ceased being SPAs and I think our COI warnings should be reverted. Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding SUL global deletion

Since I am a meta bureaucrat, and seem to be doing the majority of the global deletions for CHU and related pages of late, I'd like to ask you: do you think it would be prudent if I were to simply delete the global accounts of the requesters who neglect to make the necessary request at meta beforehand? Or do you think that it would be better to just wait for the requester to confirm that they are clear to have the global account deleted? Because I am thinking that the former would be in the best interests of efficiency and fluidity and process, considering that it is so simple to reunify and also that many of the requesters do not keep an eye on their request. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've talked this over with a couple of stewards, the general consensus seems to be that because there is some risk to SUL deletions, users need to ask for it. Auto confirmed accounts can be lost due to bugs and there is some suspicion that vandals are looking for windows to grab accounts while global accounts are deleted and cause trouble. So, slow as is it I think they need to make requests - though you offering to do it for them here does save time. Btw, there's no real need to do it if they have no contribs they're likely to want to keep. For example, Wikipedia:Changing_username/SUL#Fale-en → fale - Fale-en's only edits were making the rename requests so it would have been fine for me to just move User:Fale out of the way to let them log in with that name, without needing the global account deleted. WjBscribe 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, and I'll keep that last part in mind. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Intifada?

• Hi Will, recently, I talked to you about this case, and you said you would get back to me about it? Just wondering if there's an update, thanks. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for processing my usurpation (SUL) request. --Ellery (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)