On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2020.

Resolving Property_talk:P7963#type_constraintEdit

Please respond on Property_talk:P7963#type_constraint so we can resolve this matter. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I see you created a voting page for a candidate for CU rights. However I think you/we should not create pages before the candidate accept with the request. At least in my home wiki (fiwiki) all request for permissions pages will be removed if created without approval from candidate first. But now when it's there already, let it be and hope that the candidate will answer soon yes or no. Stryn (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Stryn
If the sysop application page indicates that it must not be transclued before acceptance, the application page for CU does not indicate this. If you don't want it to happen again, you can change the header. In any case, here, applying for another candidate on the request page is common practice (see archives). A SWMT colleague has already done so. Other wiki, other practices. Personally, I would like someone typically WD an active Wikidata contributor to be CU. —Eihel (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It is common sense that we should discuss with users before nominating them for advanced rights. Even without changing the header nobody should do it, plus I don't see what you just said about sysop application anywhere on that page. And what do you mean by "A SWMT colleague had already done so."? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
1997kB Do you mean I don't use WD:UCS? purely rhetorical question —Eihel (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You do, but in this case surely you didn't. Instead you called nominations non-typical WD users and then without discussing with Romaine first, you nominated him so that there could be a nomination against those so called non-typical users as early as possible. If you have any issues with those users, you should resolve that with them, but this vengeance is surely no good for anyone. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A few days for closing old filesEdit

1997kB After you doubt my perception of common sense, you think I am taking vengeance. I rather think that you extrapolate far too much. I think, and other Wikidatians think, that people directly related to Wikidata are more predisposed candidates. Other projects are hosting local CUs and that doesn't seem to be a problem. First think that we are all on the same boat before we think that one is part of a dissidence. If it were another project, I would not do what you call "vengeance". Wikidata welcomes experts at all levels and this task can very well be fulfilled by more than one Wikidatian. Let's be clear, finding an IP or range on an iw LTA or spam is not very difficult. Only this charge is followed by a clanical and opaque sense without reason and I think that the good wills and installed of the various projects should be better received, even accompanied. For example, I was also thinking of Mahir256, who is part of the seraglio and who is also an interesting candidate. Vandalism on WD is important, but of low magnitude by each vandal and I bet that non-local CUs can be exceeded. My opinions and my choices verify my way of thinking and do not correspond to your accusations: do you understand candidate ≠ contributor. If the candidates felt cheated (@Sotiale, Jasper Deng:), once again the comments of my votes are proof that I have absolutely nothing against them. In this sense, I am happy that User: علاء is part of the CUs. At the sight of certain votes concerning the candidacy of User: Romaine, I am really sorry for the turn that it took. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eihel, Don't worry! It feels great to hear that what I do is appreciated by others. Too often people expect that other people know this, but many do not realize it that they are appreciated. I have seen various users on nl-wiki who are hugely appreciated, but get strongly demotivated as result of criticism by only a couple of people.
Also I must say that I was happy that in full sight I was able to give my opinion about the too often overly negative approach towards users with (getting) roles I have seen over the past years.
To me what matters, and I think this should count for everyone, is that you had a positive approach, something we should have more. :-) Romaine (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Your behaviourEdit

I like to point that you calling (1, 2) current CU noms a non-typical WD user is not acceptable. They are serving this project from a long time and have enough "typical" WD experience to be a typical WD user. These shenanigans you playing towards specific users is not great. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I meant active, 1997kB. "typical" was really not appropriate. —Eihel (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


Hey, Special:Diff/1174337769 will not work as cases will be subpages of main page already and archiving them doesn't make sense to me. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

For that reason Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Archive/2020 is unnecessary, so If you don't have any objection, can I delete it? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey too 1997kB Please, would you be so kind as to look at this, when done, look at this. When you click Edit, all requests are tidy : __TOC__ … … … {{Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/1997kB}} … … So I don't see where the problem is. Especially since the other archive pages are named "Archive", not "Archives" (it's a CC from another wiki). Before, the archive page was only the first steps; I improved. The other way does the same, but there is no automatic archiving… and it is especially less pretty. My changes are therefore completely legitimate. —Eihel (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
In the above diff you added settings for bot archiving that page, while as we can see those permission pages are not archived by bot. So I am confused what are you trying to implement. Also I am not against naming that page 'Archive' but that setup is used by bot archiving pages. So if we gonna do it by hand why not keep it simple. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1997kB, I allow requests to this page to be archived by a bot. In this section, you start by writing to me that it is a sub-page. Then I show you your archived sub-page. But it still doesn't suit you; you erase my work by retorting: while as we can see those permission pages are not archived by bot. Uh, if you delete my work, it's obvious. If you are talking about a permission page, be aware that WD:AN is not a "permission page", but that it has archive lines by the same bot (SpBot). Since you claim to be using WD:UCS, I suggest that you will restore my work shortly and I could write to you that this page is archived by bot! You persist in writing to me: that setup is used by bot archiving pages. No, all the pages archived in this project are named Archive: Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive, Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive, etc. (ps. WD:BN is not a "permission page" either). And yes, all Archive pages can contain bot editions. If you are confused, I am even more confused by your actions. —Eihel (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Then I show you your archived sub-page. — Firstly what you showed is a permission request page, which is archived manually. Secondly the way you set-up the archiving settings is way too much for that page since I don't think there will be enough request that it will require a separate page each month. In the end if you think "that way" is what it will be just because everything should be identical despite the actual need for that page, start discussion at Wikidata talk:Requests for checkuser. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mind giving me a handEdit

Keep an eye on Connie Glynn (Q55510399). I don't have time to whack-a-mole with this guy --Trade (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. On Watchlist. Txs Trade. —Eihel (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Fralambert blocked the userEihel (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)