</p><noscript>
</noscript>
5,988
pages
ALL POSTSNew CheckUsers 
<p>Hey everyone,
</p><p>Many of us admins have been talking about the need to modify our current CheckUser group. We've come up with something we think will work better, and we'd like to see what you guys think. First of all, Danielboone6702 has decided to give up his CheckUser rights, due to his semi-inactivity and how few times he actually used it. In his place, we're nominating both BusyCityGuy and Obi the LEGO Fan. I will keep my rights, giving us a total of three CheckUsers. If you have any other candidates for this position, feel free to nominate them here. But please keep in mind that we do require them to be administrators. If you don't have any nominations to make, then please just leave your vote here!
</p><p>If you haven't heard of CheckUser before, or would like to learn more about it, you should check out the Help:CheckUser page. </p><noscript></noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Drew1200)
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Roseann Shadowflame wrote:
YOLO</div>A typically hugely constructive comment by Rose. She would make a much better admin than Obi, for sure. Too bad she's so under-appreciated... <p></p><noscript>
</noscript>
</div>
<p>Gotta agree with you here. :P Good old Rose.
</p>
<div class="quote">Roseann Shadowflame wrote:
YOLO</div>A typically hugely constructive comment by Rose. She would make a much better admin than Obi, for sure. Too bad she's so under-appreciated... <p>
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>Gotta agree with you here. :P Good old Rose.
</p>
(Edited by The Fruitlord)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Drew1200 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>RePeat wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">ShermanTheMythran wrote:
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>JSYK, if he wanted your IP, he could have obtained it long ago. IPs are about as easy to find as your username. </p><noscript>
</noscript> If you're concerned about privacy, then CheckUser should be the least of those concerns. Not only do we have very specific guidelines on how it is to be used, we have a log to make sure that no one is checking anyone that they shouldn't be. Honestly, the only way you would get CheckUser'd, is if you created a duplicate account. Considering that your reputation is already established, I don't see the account RePeat ever getting a CheckUser run. But if you were to create another account, that account could get it. (hint: don't create a dupe )
</div>
<p>Thanks Drew, you've made me feel <i>so</i> much better. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Whoops. </p><noscript></noscript> JK.
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>JSYK, if he wanted your IP, he could have obtained it long ago. IPs are about as easy to find as your username. </p><noscript></noscript> If you're concerned about privacy, then CheckUser should be the least of those concerns. Not only do we have very specific guidelines on how it is to be used, we have a log to make sure that no one is checking anyone that they shouldn't be. Honestly, the only way you would get CheckUser'd, is if you created a duplicate account. Considering that your reputation is already established, I don't see the account RePeat ever getting a CheckUser run. But if you were to create another account, that account could get it. (hint: don't create a dupe )
</div>
<p>Thanks Drew, you've made me feel <i>so</i> much better. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Whoops. </p><noscript></noscript> JK.
(Edited by RePeat)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>RePeat wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Drew1200 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>RePeat wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">ShermanTheMythran wrote:
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>JSYK, if he wanted your IP, he could have obtained it long ago. IPs are about as easy to find as your username. </p><noscript></noscript> If you're concerned about privacy, then CheckUser should be the least of those concerns. Not only do we have very specific guidelines on how it is to be used, we have a log to make sure that no one is checking anyone that they shouldn't be. Honestly, the only way you would get CheckUser'd, is if you created a duplicate account. Considering that your reputation is already established, I don't see the account RePeat ever getting a CheckUser run. But if you were to create another account, that account could get it. (hint: don't create a dupe )
</div>
<p>Thanks Drew, you've made me feel <i>so</i> much better. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Whoops. </p><noscript></noscript> JK.
</div>
<p>But, on a serious note, I have heard over and over about this log, and I'm sorry, but it makes me feel nonetheless safer for whatever reason.
</p>
I hate to resurrect myself from the dead to say something about this, but I see a lot of disapproval for BCG, and from what I can see that this is at least in part do to my accidental promotion (hence why I'm saying anything at all). I retained my moderator privileges not because he gave them to me, but because the administrators approved of the action after the fact. He has no undue sway or authority, and to anyone who has not come to know him as I have (a relationship which long predates LMBW), I firmly believe you'd find him as trustworthy and honorable as any. And in his defense, I don't think the fact that you don't know him well truly means he cannot be trusted with the responsibility altogether.</div> <p>
I don't want him to not be check user because of Administrator power abuse (even if it was accidental). I don't want him to be check user because I don't want my IP added to the already-detailed text doc he has dedicated to me on his computer already. Not to mention the seventy other users here.
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>JSYK, if he wanted your IP, he could have obtained it long ago. IPs are about as easy to find as your username. </p><noscript></noscript> If you're concerned about privacy, then CheckUser should be the least of those concerns. Not only do we have very specific guidelines on how it is to be used, we have a log to make sure that no one is checking anyone that they shouldn't be. Honestly, the only way you would get CheckUser'd, is if you created a duplicate account. Considering that your reputation is already established, I don't see the account RePeat ever getting a CheckUser run. But if you were to create another account, that account could get it. (hint: don't create a dupe )
</div>
<p>Thanks Drew, you've made me feel <i>so</i> much better. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Whoops. </p><noscript></noscript> JK.
</div>
<p>But, on a serious note, I have heard over and over about this log, and I'm sorry, but it makes me feel nonetheless safer for whatever reason.
</p>
(Edited by RePeat)
0
<p>@Peat - that's totally fine, I just want to make sure you were aware. </p><noscript></noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Drew1200)
0
I support BCG and Obi.
(Edited by Caysie98)
1
<p>I support Obi. I'm not sure of BCG's level of activity, but he says he checks here every day and I'm sure he'd check the logs, also for those of you who doubt - BCG isn't exactly the most rule-abiding Admin, but he'd never intentionally abuse his rights, what ever they may be, so I have decided to support him also. <span class="JdudeSig" style="text-shadow:0 0 10px black; color: black;"><i><span style="color:green;">«†J•cI•u•cI•e•420†»</span> <sup>(<span style="color:green;">Wall</span>)</sup></i></span> -Retired Bureaucrat
</p>
(Edited by Jdude420)
0
<p>I support Obi, but I'm meh with BCG.
</p>
(Edited by Samed5)
0
<p>I don't really see why we need three, or even two, CheckUsers. One is enough. It's not like there's a constant stream of people whose IPs need to be checked, let alone enough for three to be necessary.
Oppose to everyone. </p><noscript>
</noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by TwistedAlpha)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>TwistedAlpha wrote:
I don't really see why we need three, or even two, CheckUsers. One is enough. It's not like there's a constant stream of people whose IPs need to be checked, let alone enough for three to be necessary.
Oppose to everyone. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Please consider this, we have quite a large wiki and one CheckUser can not always be on, so it would make sense to have two or more CheckUsers. Anyway, we already have two, so there wouldn't be any change.
</p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Please consider this, we have quite a large wiki and one CheckUser can not always be on, so it would make sense to have two or more CheckUsers. Anyway, we already have two, so there wouldn't be any change.
(Edited by Agent Spy)
0
<p>I guess I'll add some more productive thought here rather than just some 'meh ima neutraaaaal' comment. :P
</p><p>I'm okay with Obi having it. I'm confident he will use the rights well.
</p><p>As for BCG... I'd prefer someone like Rio or Nxt to him, but I guess it's okay, what with the accountability provided by the logs. I just don't think he's the most capable person for it. I am neutral with BCG.
</p>
(Edited by Ireithien)