Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion

I've created a short piece explaining the purpose and process of bureaucrat discussions. I'm intending it purely as a descriptive, not a prescriptive piece. Please have a look, and improve it as necessary. Warofdreams talk 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of rollback during promotions

Just a note to bureaucrats, there's been a fair few occasions when an editor has been promoted sysop. post-RfA closure, and the rollback flag has been left on. Perhaps some of the Bureaucrats (to name names here, WJBscribe in particular makes a point of removing it, but a few others do not) could bear that in mind when promoting?

I'll insert some sort of reminder into the user rights form, but I just figured that I may as well post here as well. After all, the rollback flag is generally removed later by an administrator, so why double the work? :) Thanks, all. AGK (contact) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no agreement as to what to do with the flag, and the general attitude appears to be "it's not a big deal", so there hasn't been much discussion about it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, does it cause any problems being left on? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From the technical side of things, no. User permissions are additive, so admins having the rollback bit explicitly set doesn't affect setting it implicitly using the sysop privilege. It does make it harder to see who has the rollback button separately in Special:Listusers/Rollbacker. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would simply call it good form more than anything else—a bit like manipulating the laws of indices in mathematics, to eliminate a negative power: not strictly necessary, and it works fine with the negative—it's just neater, and is less likely to incur an error further down. AGK (contact) 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2

It's all getting rather heated at this RfA. I'm not sure if I should post here or at ANI, but I figured you guys have special responsibility for RfAs. Perhaps someone could have a word before it gets silly? Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "keep things calm" tag to the page, which is often used for heated discussion. Hopefully that should aid a temperature reduction, and hence facilitate more efficient discussion. AGK (contact) 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He's from central/eastern Europe. Of course it is. Will ^(talk) 09:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying RfA's are always heated whenever the candidate is from central/eastern Europe? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will made a sweeping generalisation, but yes, when an RFA candidate is from central/eastern Europe, there is a tendency for far more drama and squabbling than the norm. Not always, but often. Neıl ☎ 11:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And I'm strongly opposed to this sort of drama because of this debacle. There are some good C/EE candidates, though, just that they tend to have their RFAs failed. Will ^(talk) 12:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More 'Crats?

Just to let you know, I've opened myself up for derision and general merriment by posting a poser at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Do we still need more bureaucrats? Your musings on the topic will be especially welcome, as you're the chaps in the hot seats. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reuniting edits with account?

Whilst looking through Listusers on an errand I came across User:GOD. Inappropriate username?, probably but that is a separate issue. User talk:GOD redirects to User talk:Good Ol' Dude, and User:Good Ol' Dude redirects to User:GOD. All of the edits can be found at Special:Contributions/GOD as Special:Contributions/Good Ol' Dude doesn't exist as the name isn't registered. Should we keep the status quo or should the talk page and edits be reunited with GOD per the GFDL? Woody (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since GOD hasn't edited in nearly three years, I'd say it could be considered a "eh, who cares?" sort of situation that doesn't require any actual action. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That was I thought, just found it kindof funny at the same time, though I know there are some who insist on GFDL paranoia almost as much as copyright paranoia ;) Woody (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the content from the nonexsistent account to the normal account and CSD tagged the pages of the nonexsistant user. Nonexsistant userpages falls under WP:CSD#U2. No problem with the GFDL really, as the contributions made to the page were attributed with a signature of the user who posted the comment. All seems fine. — Κaiba 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just find it funny that this come up 3 years after his last edit. Useight (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Call for participation in an RfA

Please will one of the 'crats review my post at the VP. If it's inappropriate, please do revert me. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The notice is neutrally worded and directed to everyone so I see no problem with it. I will actually take a look myself as I will not be available to close that RfA. WjBscribe 12:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The issue (low participation when 'crats might need to decide consensus) also sparked me to post an idea to WT:RFA re SQL's reports. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the closing of this RfA as a success interesting. I wonder if User:Warofdreams can marry it's success against Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hmwith which failed. Both had an identical percentage. Hmwith's first RfA had a significantly higher number of neutrals. Zedla's had a significantly higher number of "weak supports" which I would have assumed was more relevant than neutrals. My best wishes and congratulations to the candidate of course, but the shifting of the sands here is of importance IMHO.Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a great inquiry. Although, my guess is probably the significantly higher number of neutrals in Hmwith's second RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean my first RfA. I didn't have any neutrals in my 2nd. =) нмŵוτнτ 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• The only difference is that Cecropia closed like a bot would (75%+ autopass, below 75% autofail) while Warofdreams actually weighed consensus. Bellwether ^B_C 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to second-guess Cecropia and I haven't gone through Hmwith's RfA in the detail I would were I closing it, but on a quick inspection, I suspect that I would probably also have closed it as no consensus. While Zedla does have more weak supports, Zedla also had four (of fifteen) weak opposes - whereas none of those commenting on Hmwith's RfA stated that they were weak opposes (although two could perhaps be read as such).

The opposes were also slightly different in nature. Leaving aside Hmwith's RfA for now, the primary theme in opposition to Zedla's RfA was breadth of experience - in particular, interaction with other users. As Zedla has undertaken some interaction with other users, and nobody found any fault with these this (as opposed to a couple of editors disagreeing with application of policy on a couple of occasions), I was considered these a valid concern, but one to weigh less heavily than I would have objections pointing out problematic interactions with other users.

Zedla's RfA was closely balanced, and in my post informing the user that they had become an administrator, I specifically suggested that they should look through and consider addressing the points raised in objection.

I hope that this clarifies my reasons for considering that consensus could be demonstrated on Zedla's RfA. If anyone has any further queries, please feel free to ask me here, or on my talk page. Warofdreams talk 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This would seem a perfectly reasonable (although slightly unreadable) response and justification. :) My thanks for your input and response WoD. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Slightly unreadable? Good thing I don't ever have to write any readable prose :) Warofdreams talk 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh :) If we all started writing good prose we'd end up creating an encyclopedia next! Thanks for clarifying. Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was closed successful because of the opposes based on experience, how come my old RFA closed as no-consensus? I understand that there were "weak opposes" but there were also many "weak supports" (around 15%) and hardly any "strong supports". This may be somewhat biased coming from a user who opposed this RFA and in large part influenced some other decisions (see where Rudget is mentioned in various supports, neutrals and opposes), but I feel this decision should be overturned - maybe in vain, but I shall stil try. GK. 09:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with evaluating RFAs on some other basis than pure numbers is that it causes problems like this. While a bureaucrat may try to explain his reasoning for a decision, invariably this will be an unsuccessful attempt to give words to the general impression he took from reading the RFA through. The half-vote-half-discussion method provides some acknowledgement of the obvious truth that no two situations are identical -- but most of the time, a given pair of RFA situations will not even be comparable. We can either be bots, as has been alternately advocated and condemned on this page, or we can be human beings, and consider words as well as numbers. If the latter, which I understand to be the only reasonable method, there must be no reconsideration of previous decisions in light of new ones: each decision is impressionistic and unduplicable. There is surely some value in convincing a bureaucrat that he has acted inconsistently, but this cannot mean reversal of decisions, unless we're willing to politicize what ought to be an apolitical position. — Dan | talk 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not particularly disagree with the outcome of this RfA (although I admit I was mildly surprised) and certainly do not think it should be overturned. Obviously each bureaucrat will judge consensus slightly differently. That's human nature. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't really feasible one way or another. Here are the factors: 1) While these discussions are interesting and thoughtful, nothing concrete has ever been proposed or acted upon, 2)It IS human nature, and thus attempting to uproot this is a futile effort in and of itself, and 3)The crats will indubitably use personal criteria to influence their judgement, and any attempt to standardize beyond the current methodology will be abandoned/obviated in a heartbeat, not for any ill intent, but for the simple reason that they/we have distinctive approaches. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I apologise for the above inappropriate comment. Rudget. 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA participation needed to offset canvassing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27

It has come to my attention that at least one sole purpose account has been used to anonymously contact users encouraging them to oppose Benjah-bmm27's RfA via the Special:Emailuser function. The full extent of this canvassing cannot be ascertained for sure, though investigations are ongoing. In order to dilute the effects of this attempt to manipulate consensus, I would ask as many users as possible to look at this RfA and evaluate the candidate. To this end, I have extended the RfA so that it has a full day to run. Please take the time to visit this page and provide a fresh perspective on the candidate. I would like to express my thanks to those users who approached me having received the emails in question. I strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA that give rise to suspicion that this part of an organised campaign of advocacy to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention. WjBscribe 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I quickly perused the opposers and most of the names struck me as RfA regulars and / or editors in good standing. --Dweller (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the point, Dweller. I received an email from the sock and I think they got my name from Cobi's RfA. They stated that they were writing to me as a "a regular contributor to Requests for Adminship". Sarah 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't receive the e-mail, but I'd wager that the opposers are opposing in good-faith, but the sock contacted those that they believed would be more likely to oppose. Thus, none of the votes are questionable, but the sample of users who commented may not be accurate. Ral315 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. --Dweller (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

bot parsing error

I am trying to figure out why Casliber's signature receives parsing errors here and here. Kingturtle (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could it be to do with the semi-colons? Rudget. 11:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My initial thought was that the double colons were the culprit, but the problem persists even after removing them (and it's not the analyzer caching, as it reflected the change). Hm... EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it was the colons entirely, not just the existence of two. I've made the correction on the other RfA and will contact Casliber about his sig (he's substing {{user}}, I suspect). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, signature changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Way! I got something right for a change.. :P Greman Knight. 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobi's RfA

It's overdue, which is no big deal, but how do 'Crats normally deal with !votes that come in past closing time? I think 6 have already been recorded. --Dweller (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They usually still count I think. Rudget. 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is not a strict procedure for closure. Voices of support and opposition will be counted as long as it is open, even if they occur minutes or hours after the exact week has ended. Under the Closure section of Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship it states:

"Sometime after the seven days for the RfA have elapsed, a bureaucrat will review the RfA and close it. A bureaucrat will close the RfA as soon as this is feasible, which may be hours or even a day or two after the formal closing date. Do not remove your own RfA from WP:RFA unless you are intentionally withdrawing your nomination from consideration." Kingturtle (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no rush. However there are four bureaucrats who have edited since this was due to close so it's suprising it's not been done yet. (Rambling Man, WarOfDreams and obviously Kingturtle as well as Stan Shebs who admittedly doesn't perfrom a lot of 'crat actions) Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, I recused myself from closing it because I took a position in the RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. Hence my "and obviously Kingturtle" comment. It's no biggie. Pedro :  Chat  13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, to be sure, once a Bureaucrat begins checking and reviewing comments, they usually put the whole thing on hold, right? Similar to AfDs and the {{closing}} template, or the recent Riana RfB? !votes added after that closing process begins probably wouldn't count under that system, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Negligible. A single !vote isn't going to be the deciding factor once a 'crat starts looking at an open RfA to be closed, unless that !vote shows that the candidate did something horrible, like blatantly vandalize a page, made a legal threat, punched a baby, etc. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is more likely that the longer an RfA stays open, the less likely it is to pass, as one oppose counts for anywhere between 2 and 4 supports. So someone who already is on the bubble is less likely to pass from a purely mathematical standpoint if it stays open longer, which is why I hope the 'crats will use the judgment we selected them for instead of a purely arithmetic decision algorithm. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultra, I don't think any bureaucrat has started to check and review the RfA - and that's why it is still open. Kingturtle (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That was sort of my point, discussion and votes can continue so long as it is open, but would stop once the closing began. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's now been about 12 hours since it was supposed to close. I don't think I've ever seen one go over by this much before. Useight (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"On the other hand, it is more likely that the longer an RfA stays open, the less likely it is to pass, as one oppose counts for anywhere between 2 and 4 supports. So someone who already is on the bubble is less likely to pass from a purely mathematical standpoint if it stays open longer, which is why I hope the 'crats will use the judgment we selected them for instead of a purely arithmetic decision algorithm. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)" I fail to see the math behind this argument.(and yes, one of my degrees is math based). Thright (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Assuming that people who have not commented on an RfA during the proscribed time are more or less evenly distributed between Support and Oppose. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm - is here any reason to think they would be? I seem to remember Dragon's fight looked statistically at whether support levels of RfA declined if they continued past the scheduled close and found that this wasn't the case... WjBscribe 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be glad to be proven wrong; I was basing my assumption on a non-rigourous observation of RfA over time--is there somewhere where I can see DF's analysis? -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen his analysis, I've been looking through the archives and can only find this post [1] (4th down in the thread) where he reported his conclusions. I'm sure he'd provide further information if you asked him. WjBscribe 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been closed [2] Tiptoety ^talk 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say when I got up this morning I assumed the Cobi RfA would be long closed and didn't check Wikipedia before I left home. While I would really prefer it if candidates weren't kept waiting this long for closes, the fact that this waiting period was seen a exceptional is encouraging - waits of up to a day used not to be unheard of. WjBscribe 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to thoughtful deliberation? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the length of time before a bureaucrat is available to close the request, not the amount of time that close takes in difficult cases. WjBscribe 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, gotcha - Although my comment surely (and hopefully) isn't unheard of? : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

New Idea

Here is an idea. Have all positions elected with terms. After the term is finished the user can seek re-election. This does several things, first it creates an exit for admin and crats who cannot perform, second it adds accountability, and third, a good user who once was able but now due to burnout is performing below par is subject to his present status. I would purpose that the number of admin and crats be equal to a percentage of users, for example, 5% of users are admins and 1% are crats - this can be debated-. In any case the above will solve several of the on going conversations and will re-focus the attention on the goals of wiki, which is to build the best source of knowledge ever.Thright (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)thright

I reckon that would result in lots and lots of !voting all the time. And I don't think this is the right place to put this discussion, WT:RFA would probably be better. Useight (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - You don't have to type "thright" after you add ~~~~, unless you want to. Useight (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I dont think there is currently enough "admin abuse" or incompetent admins to have a need for this extra process. Like Useight said above, it would cause there to be way too many RfA's. Tiptoety ^talk 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins can retire any time they want; they just post a request on Meta for their sysop bit to be removed, and it is.
As for your "term" concept, I don't like it; with 859 administrators, we could be spending all our time in re-electing everyone. I dunno about you, but I've got better things to do with my time... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a new idea, Thright. Please see WP:PEREN, especially this section. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think that voting all the time would distract us even more from article writing than the present process. In any case, I see no reason to stop a productive admin from doing their job just because their term is over. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree if you could point to an effective process that could remove an unproductive admin, without all of the presently attendant drama. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm..how do you define unproductive MF? do you just mean 'abusing the tools' or are you quantifying activity? As far as issues arising, we do have Request for Comment and AN/I, and arbcom Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Highfields

Please close per WP:SNOW. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to ask Highfields to withdraw? It's only been open for a few hours, though I do agree it isn't going to pass. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggested it as part of my oppose. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Untranscluded two malformed RfA's

I have untranscluded two malformed RfA's that were transcluded by someone other than the Nominator's or the candidates. One was not accepted. Both look like early drafts not yet finished. Dlohcierekim 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Rfa#Untranscluded_two_malformed_RfA.27s on what to do with at least one of them as a WP:SNOW "fail" seems unfair when the candidate didn't transclude. Pedro :  Chat  14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this isn't something that requires bureaucratic attention; discussion at WT:RFA is plenty sufficient (not trying to sound snooty, just observing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but whenever I do something like this I feel the need to let the crats know. Dlohcierekim 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how other's feel, but I'd rather this board only be used for things that require bcrat input. The rest is better suited to WT:RFA. Thanks fro keeping an eye on them though. - Taxman ^Talk 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate to let the crats know. Afterall, they are the ones in charge of the final decision for promotion or non-acceptance. They should be alerted when there are potentially malformed or incomplete nominations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

nothing's gonna change, now is it?

Why has this been marked as historical aka invalid, unimportant, no consensus whatsoever. Any bureaucrat comments highly appreciated. Dorftrottel (criticise) 20:23, March 19, 2008

My take is that it has not been deemed unimportant, but insufferably longwinded, with !votes spread thin among multiple positions thus resulting in a no clear consensus. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Read Kingturtle's statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar#Next step. I think you might be misinterpreting the template... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EVula. Dorftrottel, please join in on the conversation regarding the next step. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I think I've made my take on things very clear in and around the poll. I'd appreciate more bureaucrat response regarding the poll & how to interpret it, and ideally some discussion about future implementation of changes. Dorftrottel (canvass) 23:50, March 19, 2008

I think the {{historical}} tag is being misinterpreted. I have replaced it with {{archive}} which probably better reflects the status of the page. WjBscribe 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no strong consensus for any single one of the options, but that was bound to happen. However, by my reckoning, there's not even a firm consensus, using the standard applied in the past to other polls of this type (80%), for lowering the "bar" at all. I'm counting the "no change" lobby as 40 people, and the "change, please" lobby as 110 people (22+1+71+15+1), which means 73% of those participating favor some amount of change. I'm not sure where to put the last two groups, so I've left them aside.

However, this fact doesn't worry me terribly much. It's clear enough that a lot of folks want to see us judge RFBs more leniently, so I will begin to do so, and I hope the other bureaucrats will do the same. 85% sounds like a fair place to start. This should not be taken as a permanent policy, nor as a guarantee that the number will grow lower in time: I make no long-term commitments. I would rather ask the community again in a while.

Dorftrottel -- with regard to the note of protest on your userpage, I should mention, with all due respect to you and Riana, that this result in no way changes my conviction in re Riana's recent request. Even now that the poll has completed, it is not nearly strong enough a mandate to justify applying changes to the mechanics of a process to requests that opened before the changes were implemented. The only conscionable policy is to apply the standard that was in force when the request was opened. Only in the face of the strongest opposition from the community would I consider, to use a tired analogy (forgive me: I am tired), changing the rules while the game is in progress. Furthermore, when Riana's request was closed, the poll had not even completed. To use the same analogy, modified to account for this fact: you would have me, the umpire, change the rules to the game, not only while the game was in progress, but before the rules committee had even finished deliberating. I consider this positively out of the question. — Dan | talk 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, for the explanation. I know Riana's RfB and the poll, although causally related, are seperate issues. Yet I believe she should have been promoted and I continue to do so, that's not affected in any way by the outcome the bureaucrats decided on. Dorftrottel (canvass) 04:26, March 20, 2008

I agree with Dan that no one position won the day, but I think one can still distill a lot of userful information from the comments made. Seeing as the discussion has spread to here from the talkpage, I will restate how I interpret what the community has said at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar#Next step:

I would have preferred a bit more discussion and a little less polling. Reading the discussion as a whole, I don't think its a simple case of suggesting 80% as the new bar - there seems to be a very significant input from people who want to see more discretion based on the strength of opposition argument. Ideally I would look to trying to factor in as much of the opinions expressed into our decision making - not just the one that received most support, or the average figure - even within each section, people's response are quite individual an nuanced. I would propose a fairly loose formulation as a response to this:

"Whilst RfB is not a vote, it is generally expected that RfBs with more than 90% will be successful, whereas those with less than 80% will not be. Bureaucrats should assess the level of consensus bearing in mind the high levels of community trust expected for appointment."

I wonder if that is a good way to have an approach which factors in as many of the positions expressed as possible? Effectively I'm using what I interpret as the consensus on RfA closing, but acknowledging that the community expectations seem to be about 10% higher if one takes a numerical assessment.

I'm not excluding any groups or trying to determine numerically the results of the poll, just trying to formulate something that validly reflects the opinions expressed there. WjBscribe 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned there, I think your formulation represents an accurate distillation of the discussion. In a nutshell, no one wanted 80% as a sure pass; rather, perhaps it should no longer be the sure fail that it was. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that that is a rather impressive distillation of the discussion. I don't entirely agree with many of the arguments for lowering the bar, but that's not what we are here for; we are here to follow the community intent and judge consensus. It is clear there are a substantial number of people that think it should be somewhat lower, though as noted there is not a clear consensus for a specific change. So as is well stated in WJBscribe's summary, we should give more consideration to the opinions expressed in the RfB particularly when the nomination falls in the discretionary zone. - Taxman ^Talk 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If voting is to be used, perhaps an Approval vote would be the way to go? That's what Commons is about to embark on for discussing and deciding about suffrage requirements... (commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Voting_Approval_Poll ) People put their mark on ALL choices they are willing to accept, the choice with the highest acceptance is what is used. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar, you're talking democracy and sanity... better watch out for that grassy knoll. Needless to say I strongly agree. Dorftrottel (bait) 06:54, March 22, 2008

Rename backlog

There is a growing backlog at Wikipedia:Changing username - about 100 outstanding requests. I have various commitments over the next few days that are going to limit the amount of time I can spend on these. I would greatly appreciate it if other bureaucrats could review some requests and help reduce the numbers. WjBscribe 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do as many as possible, but I too have had limited time recently. But we will get that line moving. Redux (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle's doing some. Maxim_(talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing thats why the database keeps locking and the high Watchlist lag. Is there anyway to queue up the renames to automatically occur at say 3AM EST? MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that would require crats doing all the renames at that time unless you ask the devs to implement something on the technical level. And as that's about 6am for me, it would rule out my doing renames. I doubt the database locks are rename related though - there have only been a few renames and they haven't been users with very many contributions by the looks of it. WjBscribe 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be my New York-centric attitude coming through. Big renames are probably an infrequent enough occurence anyway. I really just should open Firefox (which keeps my edits when I page back) instead of IE (which frys them). MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

+ Sysop

I'd like to request my adminship back, which I voluntarily gave up due to a 2 month absence from the wiki. Before asking for the tools I decided to go through admin coaching with Keilana. Relevant discussion located on my talk page. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done [3]. Welcome back. WjBscribe 02:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Impersonating an admin

Barring something I don't know about, like a rename, User:Suspected Drunk Driver is impersonating an admin. see no admin rights showing on rights, contribs, and user page where he claims he's an admin. He's also performing admin actions like disapproving unblock requests. The knowledge he shows is way beyong that of a brand new user. I'm only notifying here, not blocking, in case there's something I don't know about. I'm also notifying CU User:Alison and arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali isnt a CU anymore. Try Lar. Viridae^Talk 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its this guy FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali not an CU/admin? ARGH. Contacting Lar. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm blocking the username indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a little stupid, and probably a long shot, but could this be Archtransit re-incarnated? Rudget. 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

...er, why is this posted on the bureaucrat noticeboard? EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're here. I was wondering if we could get fewer people to start sentences with things like ...uhmmm (like uhmm...you do realize (whatever) or er...(whatever) when they are expressing disagreement with something? It's a little thing but it's a little disrespectful. Why snark when nice will do :) I'm not a prude but there's noting wrong with giving each other the same respect as we would in the workplace right? Sorry to pick on you EVula, you're a active, valued long time editor so I figured you could handle it! RxS (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, must be a difference of interpretation. I consider a leading ellipse to be more relaxed, versus a flat-out "why is this here?" which (in my opinion) has the very same negative implications that you just said mine had. :) I'll try to adjust my wording accordingly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there still an action item here for me? I am thinking not... (I think checks were already run...) Sorry I didn't respond earlier, Rlevse's email note went into my spam folder! sigh. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor setback chaps, I'll be keeping up the good work by other means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.143.58 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 March 2008

Yeah, I think ^ that one should be blocked as an obvious sockpuppet. Enigma ^msg! 06:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Crat chat

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5

It was brought up on THP's RfA talk page, so I suppose I'll ask the elephant in the room to either go away, or stay for a drink. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

At 68%, with over 70 opposes and no mitigating or extraordinary circumstances, I personally don't think one is needed. Daniel (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to what the request or notice actually is. Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He was in the discretionary range when the crat chat was first brought up. Now he's not. 68% (which has been falling rather rapidly the past couple days) looks rather obvious. Wizardman 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up a few days ago, but it was mainly me not paying attention. There were so many votes I assumed the RFA was near the end, when really it was only a couple days old. Anyway, all I was suggesting was that (if it's in the appropriate range) the crats decide collectively rather than one individual sticking his neck out. But, it looks like the community may have stepped up and made this unnecessary, which is even better. Friday (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, I was opposed to the idea. This is a drop off message. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SUL and renames

Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames

The implementation of Unified Login may mean that bureaucrats should agree to perform renames in circumstances where our practice is currently to decline them. I have created the above page in an attempt to get a feel for community consensus on SUL and how far bureaucrats should go to accommodate SUL-based rename requests. Input from all welcome and appreciated. WjBscribe 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also meta:Steward_requests/Usurpation. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Limits of non-crat closures

I think that a clarification from the 'crat about when non-crats can close RfA is in order. In my very personal view, non-crats can close only RfA of new editors which gets only opposes/moral supports. I mean user with less than <1000 edits, eg. Now, yesterday it has been twice closed by a non admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NorthernThunder. The user had 9000 edits continuously from 2006. That's far out of the SNOW range for me. Well, when it was closed it the first time it was at 1/3/1. AGK argued that no rfa with 1:3 will have any chance to pass. Well, I don't agree as the user, in my opinion, could have expanded the questions and still passed. But mainly I don't agree that it's a decision for a non-crat.

Now, second closure. It was certainly looking as the chances of passing were very low (6/12/4) but I belive we have let similar RfA run in the past, the only difference was that they were of well know and controversial users. That's all, when nobody knew this candidate.

But let me generalize. I don't think that *controversial* closures are for non-crats. And this, I'm sorry, was. There were 6 serious (well, mine may have not being that serious but I was planning of expand it today) supports from users in good standing.

Are we so short of 'crats that we need to have users make controversial decisions in RfAs? Users that are not accountable, as they haven't passed a RfB where we could have said opposed their closings.

Now, I'd like some input from the 'crats. I believe that the older model of strictly-crat closures was working well, and I don't see why users should be allowed to overstep into the RfA closures field. If the 'crats believe that there aren't enough 'crats around for the job, they say so and we'll try to find some more. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't close an RfA early unless it got quickly to 6+ more opposes than supports. I've seen RfAs start at a stumble (such as 1/3/0) and then pick up steam. Kingturtle (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since most of the opposes are pretty weak and don't really come up with anything so strong to deny NorthernThunder adminship, the RFA should have been let to run its course, where it would have nudged no consensus rather than a SNOW close. Rudget. 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a good opportunity for me to hold my hands up, and say that close was too early. I've been closing RfAs under WP:SNOW for a while now, and I generally hold fast to a <25% support rule, but I am still willing to admit that it would have been prudent in this case to wait a little longer. Thoughts? Anthøny 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that nothing should be closed as a snow without at least 10—12 opinions, and even so, it would need to be 2/10 or 3/9. 1/3 in and of itself is just a slow start, as 1/3 can easily become 12/4 in a matter of minutes. Once there is something more than statistically "random noise", meaning around 10-12 edits, and the ratio is worse than around 1/5, then I could see a closure. Even 6/12, while highly unlikely to pass, is close enough to becoming a 50/50 that should be left to run its course than it is a 6/24 snow. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The test for me for a WP:SNOW non-crat close has always been "the discussion here is becoming so one-sided and miserable that it risks demoralizing this editor so badly he or she might leave Wikipedia." In addition, any editor can go through the mechanics of closing and logging an RfA that has been withdrawn by the candidate. Short of those two situations, the closes are best left for the bureaucrats. If a user believes an early closing might be in order, a note can be left on this page (WP:BN) for the 'crats to consider. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, Newyorkbrad, you really should be a bureaucrat... Maxim_(talk) 14:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they used to think I should be an arbitrator, too.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And we were correct, so just be quiet and take your medicine, Brad . -- Avi (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think non-crat closures should be allowed, I also think they should be subject to reverting and should not be closed by a non-crat a second time if they are reverted. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues with non-crat closures. Wikipedia is run by all wikipedians. Naturally, people should act in a responsible manner. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. But as noted by others, this particular closing was not a good choice, either time, and Newyorkbrad one again has a good summary of the situation. - Taxman ^Talk 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMON. Sometimes users just need to use it - we're a pretty solid, well-intentioned community. I don't presume placing a limit upon non-crat closures would be beneficial. Restrictive? Yes. Helpful? Not really. Crats are a limited pool of users. Sometimes things linger that need attention/action sooner rather than later. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BirgitteSB is a great example. At one point the tally was (1/5/1) and now it is at (74/13/7). One has to be very careful about closing too early. Obviously using numbers alone does not suffice. One must gauge the written responses. Can that really be done from a pool of six or seven opinions? It is better to wait until you have a good dozen. I trust non-crats to make intelligent decisions regarding early closures. Just don't be quick on the trigger. Kingturtle (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

However, if it's (1/5/1), and the user has 500 edits, I think the eventual outcome is quite obvious. Maxim_(talk) 11:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll still disagree a bit with that, because it again puts too much focus on the numbers. Participants in the RfA will likely put too much focus on the numbers too, but if that user is a bcrat, admin, and checkuser on four different projects and their few edits here show an unusual understanding of policy here, then the more salient features of the candidate might not be discovered by the first several (even many of the first 15 or so) participants exactly as happened in BirgitteSB's RfA. Again, we should do everything we can to move the focus away from the numbers and on to truly reviewing a candidate. The same thing for closing RfA's that don't look like they are on the way to success. Newyorkbrad's formulation is an excellent one because it avoids the numbers and still gets at the salient points of why we close them early. There really is no other reason. "Don't be quick on the trigger" is another good guideline as well. - Taxman ^Talk 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely - given that scenario, the more level-headed users working with common sense and WP:IAR the better. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}

OTRS request

Resolved

I need a bureaucrat with access to OTRS to take a look at 2008032510010547. My question is whether you think a rename should be done immediately or if I should leave that user a message asking them to change their name. John Reaves 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this has been sorted. Would some rename him based on this. John Reaves 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 23:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John Reaves 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Resolved

Hey there 'crats, forgive me if this is the incorrect place to post, but there is a very strange RfC going on that needs to be closed. I think an uninvolved admin/editor can technically close it, of which I'm not (uninvolved). Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum has turned out to be rather strange. The original nominator, User:Scetoaux has withdrawn his certification of the RfC, as has the co-certifier, User:Balloonman. Nearly unanimously (with the possible exception of User:Epbr123), anyone participating wishes it to go away gently into that good night. Anyone wanna take a look at it (and relevant conversations here, here, here, and here) and archive this as an uninvolved party? Thanks in advance. The entire RfC has spiraled out of control and has become a meta-discussion that has nothing to do with the subject (Malleus). See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum.) Also, if I am completely in the wrong venue, if you could point me the right direction? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I would have thought WP:AN or WP:AN/I is the right place for this request. Ronnotel (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, as it's not properly certified anymore. For future reference, this really isn't a bureaucrat-related issue, as Ronnotel mentions. Ral315 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, loyal BN watchers. I wasn't sure, and I thought a more "focused" noticeboard was in order than ANI. For next time (and please GOD, let there not be a next time...) Marking resolved. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that being said, shouldn't it be archived instead of deleted? Not sure of precedence for that...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-certified RfCs are deleted if they don't have two certifiers within 48 hours. Ral315 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that to my knowledge bank! Thanks Ral. Now, off to learn the other 6 billion policies that I should probably know as an admin....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

retired admins & the bit

Is there any particular reason why permanently retired admins should retain their bit? If they ever return, they can ask it back anytime on this board. One example I just stumbled across is Francs2000 (contribs). Dorftrottel (criticise) 09:51, March 31, 2008

Maybe...but only if we've tried other options like emailing them and posting to talk page. Users have gone missing for lengthy periods of time, and I'd say the hassle of grabbing a steward, proving their inactive, then when they come back proving to the crat they left in good standing, and getting the flag back, outweighs the benefit of one less hackable admin account. But thats just me. MBisanz ^talk 09:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My primary focus is not on the hackability (that a word?) of inactive admin accounts so much as correcting the numbers of active admins. But maybe a a statistical analysis of admin activity, both regarding use of admin tools and general editing, may be more efficient and also easier as you say. Dorftrottel (complain) 11:07, March 31, 2008

This has been discussed at length before, see the general overview here. Rudget. 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably should have written "nevermind then" above. Dorftrottel (complain) 13:29, March 31, 2008

You can see the number (and list) of active admins at Wikipedia:List of administrators, actually. There are currently 996 active admins, out of 1527 admin accounts. --Conti|✉ 13:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know about that, thank you! Dorftrottel (warn) 15:53, March 31, 2008

It is truly sad how few active admins we have. Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can 996 really be described as "few" administrators? We probably have more admins than any website in existence. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the continued growth of en.Wikipedia, the number of active admins isn't keeping up. Make a graph through time of #editors, #articles, #edits vs. #admins and #active admins. Kingturtle (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You've apparently done the research, so let's see your graph. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would an inactive admin's account be more prone to be hacked than an active admin's? Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be. But by making more accounts that have the admin bit, it gives more chance to a hacker. Majorly (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Active account are prone to password sniffing, inactive accounts are not. I would say an account not being used is more secure than one that is not. The devs have already ran dictionary attacks on all admin accounts, and while that won't get every guessable password it does seem to have gotten most of them. As for determining how many are active, just check the logs to see which admins have done an edit in the last X days. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How vulnerable active account are is irrelevant, since we can't remove the bit from them anyway. Vulnerable inactive account is a risk we can remove. I'm not sure it's really worth the hassle, though - the risk is minimal. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we shouldn't have more admins because there are more chances for hackers. :P I understand that inactive admins is a mildly bad thing, but "teh omg hackerz!!1!" rationale isn't one of them, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is to say it is inactive? The user might want to come back later, they might still be reading deleted content which would not be logged. We generally don't take action against an account until they have done something, ie I don't see the benefit from desysoping an account that has not done anything wrong. Sure, someone might hAx0r it, but then they get deadmined, no problem. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone inactive (by inactive, I mean absent without warning for over 3 months) be reading deleted content? I can't imagine seeing deleted content would be very useful to any inactive person, and sounds like trouble to me. Majorly (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Their reasons would be based on the discretion they were given the admin bit for. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And what reasons would they be? Majorly (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This all sounds like much ado about nothing to me, tbh. --Charitwo ^talk 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How does one even tell if an administrator has gone on a permanent leave, or is simply busy/consumed by the non-virtual world? Many administrators indicate that they are taking a hiatus and can be asked to be temp. desysoped, which is likely to be reinstated when they return. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2

Resolved

 – Placing a resolved is prima facie of being bold. Rudget. 10:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is getting a little ridiculous - Many users are not taking this seriously at all. Makes it a little difficult to have discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

it's april first... the nom's a joke... SQL^{Query me!} 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

hahaha Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, it's April Fools. No need to take everything seriously. —Dark ^talk 06:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No no, I know - I didn't even realize. Trust me, I have a sense of humor! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think saying he wished to delete AfD for lulz in his self-nom was probably a giveaway. :D Orderinchaos 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was being quirky! Man, I have to go hang my head in shame. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I trust the issue is resolved? :P -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is in rather poor taste, and had any other editor been the butt of this joke it would very likely have raised self-righteous accusations of incivility and probably resulted in an RfC at the very least. Are the civility guidelines suspended on April 1, or is it just open season on one particular editor who happens to voice a currently unfashionable opinion? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So do you believe this is a serious nom from Kurt? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, In fairness Kurt created the RFA himself, quite clearly as an April Fools joke. All power to him, IMHO, for his self-depreciaition. Pedro :  Chat  12:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I should probably have read the nomination before commenting in that case. That'll larn me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

:-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of general interest

(moved here from WP:AN by User:Doug)

I have thought about doing this for along time, but the events of the past 24 hours have really put this into perspective for me. This is not the Wikipedia I joined four years ago. For a full list of reasons, please e-mail me, but otherwise...

• I quit

Do whatever there is consensus to do, whether that be protect/blank my user and user talk pages, desysop me or whatever. I gave my time and my edits and got nothing in return, not even respect. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Tiptoety ^talk 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Some need a sense of humor. Your contributions will be sorely missed if you seriously do leave. seicer | talk | contribs 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, if you leave this way the Pikmin will have to take you to an onion, where you'll be reprocessed into a seed-thingy. I'd rather you stuck around Wikipedia and find the thirty necessary parts, so you can help the Pikmin fight off their predators. In other words, please consider a small wikibreak, and then come back. We need you. Kingturtle (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another great editor gone.  :( Best of luck Ryan in whatever you do next.Pedro :  Chat  19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is also at ANI. seicer | talk | contribs 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, Ryan. There isn't much point for this notice to be here though - any admin can delete userpages and bureaucrats cannot desysop users. WjBscribe 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an unnecessary move by me; Sorry I didn't notice it was ANI, it had sat for nearly two hours without comment at AN. (BTW, it has been merged here from ANI as well, ANI is just a link now). --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We can move it back. I just brought some of the missing text over here so that it didn't get lost in the shuffle. Kingturtle (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will reconsider at an appropriate time in the future to continue contributing on a regular basis. I will continue to be available on my talk page if needed, but otherwise it has seemed a good time to go. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all wish you best in whatever you choose to do. Tiptoety ^talk 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or is everyone leaving lately...? :/ -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Who else? :S Rudget (review) 12:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By recently, I mean this year... I dunno, just a general trend of burning out and retirement.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Firsfron, a very active and diplomatic editor last edited on February 4th - Spawn Man is another, WP dinosaurs has got really quiet recently...thing is, people come and go. If you've been around you get used to it... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot/Admin edits might be of some interest, its admins sorted by their last edit. β^{_{command 2}} 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RTV Request

This user contacted me via email to invoke his WP:RTV. This RFCU resulted in an indef block of the user that I and others have declined to lift. Specifically the emails mentions the existence of a real life business of the same name that is not affiliated with the user and the high current google hit of his wikipedia userpage. So I am requesting he and the RFCU be renamed to unused RenamedUser4 (talk · contribs). I will review google in a month or so, but I don't believe that AWB replacement of signatures would be needed at this time. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have the user email me. Kingturtle (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Expect an email in the next day or so if his schedule is the same. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Any updates if this was accepted? MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:BAG

Could a 'crat review the open votes at WT:BAG? One's been running for nearly 40 days. Gimmetrow 00:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they'll have to be brought back out of archive, but in general bureaucrats have not been the ones expected to be dealing with those unless they are contentious or tricky in some way. Generally BAG members close them, which may happen to be bcrats. As it is they just suffer from low participation, which we can't really solve specifically. - Taxman ^Talk 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't in archive when I posted. WP:BAG says "After ten days, an uninvolved bureaucrat or an uninvolved current BAG member will close the discussion." Gimmetrow 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag move.

Resolved

 – flag moved SQL^{Query me!}

I was wondering if I could get a crat to assign a bot flag to User:NotifyBot per [4]. It's just splitting an already-approved task [5] to it's own bot. SQL^{Query me!} 10:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Heh, for some reason, I assumed you were the bot operator too. Sorry about that. - Taxman ^Talk 13:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! :) SQL^{Query me!} 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of bot flag for User:EBot IV

Resolved

 – de-flagged, by bureaucrat Taxman. Anthøny 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I please get the bot flag for EBot IV removed as Chris G has informed me that his bot will be re-coded and re-approved for a new code of the StatusBot which updates user statuses. Thanks in advance, — E ^talk _aussie 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. - Taxman ^Talk 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Block logs and renameuser

• https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7011

This is supposedly fixed now - if i'm reading it correctly this eliminates the need for one-second blocks following a rename. --Random832 (contribs) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Block logs are now moving when accounts are renamed. WjBscribe 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct there, Random: I also just noticed it, and posted to WT:CHU/U#Block logs. Anthøny 19:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations backlog

If a bureaucrat has a free moment, can they please take a look at the backlog here? Thank you. Xenon⁵⁴ 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Its cause WJBscribe (talk · contribs) is on vacation. O The Rambling Man! isn't this why we promoted you? MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

/me promotes MBisanz to 'crat and sets him loose on the backlog :) Anthøny 00:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Back now - it's on my 'things to do' list. WjBscribe 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Will, and not a moment too soon :) Anthøny 19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those times where someone should've put in an RfB... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually the backlog is mainly due to bug #13507 - so a new developer might have been the better bet ;-) ... WjBscribe 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King‎

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King‎ has been withdrawn and closed by the user. But b'crats may need to do the listing on failed RfAs and the other stuff that goes along with closing. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, any editor can do this. The candidate closed the RFA and I've added it to the relevant list [6] - no bureaucrat action is required here. Pedro :  Chat 

I know that anyone can do it. I just figure that b'crats are more likely to know how to do it right! :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Pedro..you forgot to add it to this list as well. *Tsk Tsk* :D Tiptoety ^talk 00:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks Tiptoey *slaps own head* Pedro :  Chat  12:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My name was spelt incorrectly :) Gary King (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joke questions in RFA

If this has been discussed before, please let me know. As I've noticed through my own current RFA and other recent ones, there has been a surge in the practice of asking joke questions during RFAs. I find these to be totally hilarious, but counterproductive, confusing to editors new the process (see this example), and generally disrespectful of the consensus-building process. Also, there has also been a good upsurge in questions asked in general, and joke questions can obscure serious ones. I'd like to hear what the bureaucrats, especially, have to say about this as a group, and tentatively suggest a new guideline whereby joke questions may be redacted in a similar manner to personal attacks. VanTucky 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-crat input, but I saw your last edit summary and was actually going to drop a note on your talk page about your exceptional handling of this. Enough is enough. VanTucky is an expeienced Wikipedian whose RFA will certainly pass with a highly respectable "turn out". But that does not mean it becomes a free-for-all. In addition, a lot of these redundant questions where posted earlier in the RFA when success was not as assured as it is now. I've no idea where this current trend for asking candidates valueless questions comes from, but I'd suggest people stop and consider exactly what value they are bringing to the table with them. It might have been funny once. It isn't any more. And if a current experienced candidate is irritated by them, imagine how on earth someone less experienced would feel just looking at RFA - they'd not touch it with a barge pole. Hardly good for Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not a bureaucrat, but I'll offer my two pence anyway. Everybody has differing humour: myself, I like stupidity. Joke questions aren't a bad thing; they lighten the mood in rfa, a process which, I believe, is a stressful one. Trust me, a week in rfa isn't a nice one. However, joke questions need to be subject to a little balance: too little, one could argue, makes the thing (too?) serious; too many, it overwhelms the candidate, causes confusion such as that linked in VanTucky's original post), and detracts reviewers of the candidate (and, by extension, of the rfa's questions: obviously, when one reviews a candidate, his or her competence is an issue, and answers to questions are a method of gauging that) from the task at hand. To that end, I would suggest that a reduction, rather than a blanket ban, in joke questions on requests for adminship is the correct course of action from here on in. Anthøny 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with a soft approach to discouraging them, based on the conditions in each RFA. Note I use the exact phrasing "may be redacted", not must be. VanTucky 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I hadn't wanted to get involved in this particularly - I don't want bureaucrats to need to control what is or isn't asked at RfA. That's something the community really should be able to cope with itself. I am also aware that some of the asking of these questions has been done deliberately to force a response of this nature. Nonetheless, enough is enough. What's humorous to some is uncomfortable for others. RFA needn't have a funereal atmosphere but some element of seriousness and dignity is needed. The abundance of absurd questions - be they silly / fatuous or related to some minor wikiphilosophy - has gone on enough. RfA candidates are not a captive audience to be prodded and poked for the amusement of spectators. Whilst some may be relaxed by the more foolish questions, the overwhelming feedback I am getting is that more find the process far more daunting for it. The numbers of people going through RfA suggests candidates are voting with their feet and staying away. The net effect is negative for Wikipedia.

So I have taken action and removed a large number of questions from 2 RfAs and will be looking more closely at what is being asked for a while. Ideally, I would like the silly questions to end today. The joke's over. I would also like to see a general reduction in the number of questions, with questioners giving much more serious to (a) whether the question is necessary to determining the trustworthiness or competence of the candidate; and (b) whether the burden being added to the process for the candidate is worth the amount of information a response to the question is likely to give. Needless to say I'm pretty dismayed that the question situation has deteriorated so far that it's needed me to step in. WjBscribe 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just get rid of the optional-but-mandatory questions? The only question that should be asked is "Do you trust this candidate? y/n". Sceptre ^(talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't the whole RfA process just become a joke? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that myself. I don't like the idea of using joke RfA questions, it undermines the process, bluntly. Wizardman 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I jump in support of your proposal, Sceptre; on the other, I have reservations about it. I have oft' been of the view that questions for candidates are a useful tool for "measuring" or gauging candidate competence, an important qualification for any potential administrator: the purpose of rfa is, one supposes, to ensure editors who would actively have a negative effect on the project as an administrator, are not flagged, and an inability to function successfully–i.e., in accordance with Wikipedia's communal norms and policies—is very much a factor that would incur a negative effect. After all, not every candidate is an "administrator, but without the tools" (huge participation in AN, AIV, XFD, etc.), and in those robust, highly experienced editors who nominate themselves, despite a relatively absent participation in "sysop areas", it's often hard to say whether they'd be able to successfully function as an administrator. Questions can help with that.

Conversely, however, they can also pick out bad points in a potential administrator, expose areas where, perhaps, they are not as fluent in functioning: for example, a candidate may intend to focus primarily on deletion debates (and hence the deletion tools), and yet fail an rfa because of a poor answer to a protection question. Carrying out a cost-benefit analysis there would, I'd say, flag that up not a good outcome from the rfa. Furthermore, you get exceptionally difficult questions (ones that factor in arbcom decisions or remedies, demand reflection on highly controversial and/or obscure topics, articles, etc.) that are really not fair; not every candidate that passes rfa is going to go on to become one of the project's resident superheroes, and most certainly not immediately after gaining the tools: being a sysop. is a learning curve.

All-in-all, rfa questions are, by-and-large, and in principle, a good thing, and I would disagree that their blank removal is a good thing. What I do agree with, however, is that a toning down, both of the volume, and difficulty of questions for candidates undergoing the rfa process is in order, and I hope that is implemented into the system in the not-too-distant future. Anthøny 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat conflicted on this. On one hand, RfA is stressful and some levity is really great. However, the process should be somewhat serious, as it is public scrutiny and all that. The excess of questions overall is a bad thing, and once a question has been answered correctly, there's no point to asking it again as any person with a couple of brain cells will just copy their answer. The only questions that actually have a purpose are the ones specific to the candidate (e.g. "what was your reasoning behind this?" "what would you do in this specific AFD?" "would you delete this? Why?"), as no one else will be asked that. Just my ramblings 2 cents/pence/what have you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to back WJBscribe up, here. I agree with him totally. Enough is enough. To address some of your concerns, RFA isn't perfect. Infact, it has a lot of downfalls. But I don't think it's "a joke". And we've yet to come up with a better system that we can agree on. So, it stays as it is. Joke questions can sometimes be funny, but a large amount of them is not. I intend to remove all such questions that I see. --Deskana (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of userrights

At the current moment, it's my understanding that with the current software, it would be easy to enable bureaucrats to remove userrights (including "sysop"). From what I understand, the only thing preventing this from happening here (at en:Wikipedia), is a request for consensus here at en:Wikipedia.

So I'd like to start such a discussion in order to determine consensus. (If any of the above isn't clear, please ask, I'll be happy to further clarify.) - jc37 16:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a perennial proposal. But yes, you are right. Bureaucrats originally could remove rights, but that is disabled on Wikimedia projects. On Meta-wiki, we have recent proposed to allow all admins to become bureaucrats, and at the same time, allow bureaucrats to remove. It can be set per project. However, I honestly don't think it's needed, or wanted here. Firstly, because desysopping is very rare, and the stewards are a lot more active than our bureaucrats normally. Secondly, I personally think it would be better to keep a log of rights removal in one place (i.e. m:Special:Log/rights). In all, I don't believe for one second this has a chance of being agreed on. Majorly (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there're more userrights than just sysop (rollback, for example). And I don't have a problem trusting the Bureaucrats with this. Could you clarify the concern about the log?

And finally, I've found often enough that things which people may have called WP:PEREN or even "not likely", in the past, often find consensus in the present. (Sometimes, everyone is for it, but is concerned about an opposing group that no longer exists. So this is, essentially, "testing the waters".) - jc37 18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the background about why the ability to de-sysop was removed from the bureaucrats' remit? I remember reading something about "abuse". Was it before or after the arbitration committee was established?--chaser (away) - talk 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it that they had some extra button or that they just had access to the servers or whatever? Either way, I think it may be Ed Poor's fault. John Reaves 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Were bureaucrats ever allowed to remove rights on the English Wikipedia? Because if I recall correctly, Ed Poor removed a few rights using developer rights, not bureaucrat rights. Perhaps that was the reasoning for keeping it steward-only, though... Ral315 (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They weren't allowed to. Before the days of stewards, removal was done by someone with developer type access (i.e. Tim Starling, Brion or Jimbo or whoever). Bureaucrats were created to allow local users to do promotions (yes, that's all they are there for, none of this glory "must be trusted by all" nonsense), but not demotions. Majorly (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no backlog of people needing to be desysoped, and I think the stewards are doing a fine job. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh there's no backlog. It would sure be useful though, considering bureaucrats have to pass under such stupidly high standards, they won't go abusing this. Majorly (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good safety measure to keep the ability to give and remove the sysop but separately. Simply put if someone got the password to a 'crat account and has the ability to both added and remove the admin bit then not only could they create admin accounts to run wild, but they could remove the bits from other admins to prevent them from containing the damage.

With the use of a simply created bot, a person could de-admin every sysop(in order of how active they are) in a matter of minutes. The ability to remove the admin bit can actually do far more damage than the ability to give it. If there is no backlog requiring more hands on the button, then lets just leave the button in the hands it is in now. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Same could be said for a steward account. Likewise, the active stewards could quickly decrat as easily as they could emergency desysop and start "reversing" it in a "matter of minutes". As for this discussion, it really doesn't matter one way or the other, but the right itself under the hands of a bureaucrat wouldn't bother me if it did happen. --Charitwo ^talk 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Britishrailclass91

I have just closed the above RFA as unsuccessful per WP:SNOW. It never went live, but received five opposes. Was I correct to close, or should I have left it for the nominee to put it live and wait for more opposes? Regards, Rudget 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you speak to the editor about it first? One of the comments in the RFA itself was that Britishrailclass91 had decided not to list it. Might have been better to chat it out and then, if required, go to MfD with it, since it was never formally listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did. However his only edits after the notice I sent has been to attack another editor that opposed in his RFA. Concerning indeed. Rudget 18:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for 12 hours after this comment after a final warning. Rudget 18:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference if an RfA isn't live nothing official ever needs to be done with it–certainly not closing it. Of course, people shouldn't be voting on RfA's that aren't live, so it's fair to let people know that too. It is only when they get listed that they are subject to closing, SNOW, etc. - Taxman ^Talk 22:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably though, if it's clear that it'll never be used then MfD is appropriate? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, why does anything need to be done with it? If it wasn't linked to from anywhere (and I don't know how people found it if it wasn't, unless they're all RC patrollers), it's not doing any harm. If people feel the absolute compulsion to do something with it, just move it to userspace and delete the redirect. No big deal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically my opinion. I always favor the option with the least overhead so we can just edit articles and in this case MfD is certainly too much overhead. On the note of people finding them, they get found in various ways and too often people jump the gun on them which should generally be discouraged. - Taxman ^Talk 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

CAT:BOR

I'm not sure all of the bureaucrats have noted the existence of this voluntary category, CAT:BOR, for the potential recall of bureaucrats. If you haven't, please think about it and perhaps add yourself to the list if you believe it worthwhile. Avruch ^T 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, a whole new drama-creating process that can tank RfBs! :)
Don't get me wrong; I support the concept of recall, but I made sure to have some pretty clear-cut rules. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3‎

I have withdrawn my nomination, can a crat or bold editor please close this for me? Thank you! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed by me. Acalamari 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look! Increased Workload!

Heads up, gentlecrats. As I've hinted in the past, we've just added a section at the bottom of WP:RFA for BAG membership. This should be very low level, and I've put myself of as the first victim candidate. You probably want to check on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy where this new process is being discussed; in particular the guidelines of what "consensus" will mean for BAG membership is still vague-ish and 'crat input will be appreciated. — Coren ^(talk) 16:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Is it intended that all current BAG members will go through this process? WjBscribe 17:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Current BAG members are grandfathered for a period (at six months right now, although some have suggested this might be too long), at the conclusion of which they must go through this process if they did not already. — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What has this to do with adminship or bureaucratship? Seems as it ought to go on one of the bot-related pages. The only user rights flag associated with the bot process is 'bot', which has its own process page someplace. It would make more sense, I think, to associate these requests with that. — Dan | talk 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the problem has been that these requests on bot pages get very little third party input - the result is that there has been a growing feeling that BAG are disconnected from the community. That rather boiled over in a recent ArbCom case. WP:RFA is being used for the prominence of that page. I have some reservations - no user right is being granted, but on other hand it is a position of trust for which community input is proposed. All in all, this seems a worthwhile experiment to me. WjBscribe 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WJB managed to express this quite eloquently. I guess that's why the 'crats have the big salaries and benefits.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem a worthwhile expirement. It creates confusion. RFA/RFB is about everything but technical ability. If BAG is not getting enough input that's an issue for sure, but so what? Our article on Cheese is not getting enough input from Wikiproject:Thomas The Tank Engine. What are we trying to achieve here? More discussion before a go live would have been good. This is just going to cause disruption and confusion. Pedro :  Chat  23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in some of the discussions currently in progress on WT:BOT. Mr.Z-man 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't it just be put in WP:BRFA? bibliomaniac15 00:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As I commented over here for want of a better place to do so, this seems all rather bizarre. Regardless of whether there is a consensus to go for an RfA-type system for BAG (which incidentally I'm not seeing), it has pretty much nothing to do with adminship so quite why it would be on that page is rather beyond me. Will (aka Wimt) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for this change myself, but, I will admit that I do not think doing this is a good idea. Someone mentioned above, about putting them at WP:BRFA... That seemed like a great place to start. SQL's Alternate Account ^(talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Will, there's a discussion about this ongoing at WT:BOTS. SQL's Alternate Account ^(talk) 01:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there appears to now be tentative agreement that the currently running RfBAGs should run their course and be closed "normally" according to the proposed bit of policy, and that they will be used as exemplar to evaluate the proposed system. Pretty much everyone agrees that Bureaucrats are the most indicated people to close the selection process (regardless of the eventual venue), given that evaluating consensūs is what 'crats do. — Coren ^(talk) 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm impatient or anything (:D) but two of the RfBAGs are now over 18 hours overdue for closure. Can I ask how the bureaucrats intend to proceed? Happy‑melon 13:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On the understanding of this being a trial process, I have closed both requests as I would do so were these requests to become a regular feature. In my opinion, both discussions demonstrate a consensus that the user in question should be a member of BAG. WjBscribe 14:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we can crack open some statistics and see how the RfBAG process compare to the old process, and hopefully have a sensible discussion about the whole thing. Happy‑melon 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there is probably consensus not to implement this procedure at this time, and that there should be no further nominations. I noticed, that krimpet has noted this at WP:RFA. SQL^{Query me!} 03:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, apparently, if these are left up, people (whom are most likely not aware of what is going on with the process) are going to continue adding themselves, it seems. Sooner or later, merely because no one has stepped forth and put a stop to it, we'll be dealing with an entrenched process (which, I think is what's being aimed for now). Anyone have a stronger idea how to dissuade further noms (honestly, it's a waste of time now, no?)? Should the most recent two be removed, as we've all come to an agreement that there is no consensus to continue on with this system at this time? Given that, should we not go ahead and clear the entire section for the time being? SQL^{Query me!} 09:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For a start I should note that I am paying absolutely no attention to that section of WP:RFA. I can't speak for the other bureaucrats, but it wouldn't surprise me if none of them are either. If there's no consensus to implement it (or even better, a consensus not to implement it) then it should just be removed so we can be done with it. --Deskana (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While this is just an evil, nonbinding vote, I think the sentiment is fairly clear. Mr.Z-man 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's important to keep in mind that letting inconclusive, false dichotomy situations influence policy is exactly the reason why votes are frowned upon. The question should not be: "BAG requests on RFA, yes or no?" It should be, "How do we address the issue of insufficient traffic on BAG requests?" One answer that has been suggested is to use the enhanced visibility of the RFA page and if users are participating as intended, we should continue. The whole point of the consensus system is be bold, discuss, change, repeat. Andre (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were just that poll I would be inclined to agree. However, the discussion here, the poll, and, WT:BOTS are all fairly clear that this is not the appropriate way to address the issue. I find myself somewhat amazed that I even have to argue this point, as this was implemented, and is continued in a manner contrary to how we do things. I will accept, that it was tried 'as an experiment (although marked as policy in error, and that's not really what's going on). When this "experiment" will end, is at this time undefined. The community that has cared to participate, has been very clear mostly, that this is not the way to solve this problem. I personally, could have been WP:BOLD, by now, and simply reverted the whole shebang, but, I've chosen not to, as I think this area has seen enough WP:BOLD action for a while. SQL^{Query me!} 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree that this proposal is as dead as SQL claims - on the contrary, there is plenty more discussion to be had. I think the best way to describe the situation would be that we currently don't have a consensus for anything! However, I do agree that the trial process, if not firmly capped, will run riot. I propose that the two RfBAGs which are overdue for closure (Werdna's and Soxred93's) be evaluated in the same way as Cobi's and Coren's were. Perhaps ST47's and OverlordQ should be allowed to run their full term and be closed in the same way, as they were opened in good faith before the consensus to stop the trial RfBAG process was really enunciated. I would advocate that Ilmari Karonen's RfBAG be closed now (although note the apparent CoI as I've !voted oppose in that one) and that any future candidacies be removed immediately. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 11:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin access

I resigned my administrator access in November 2006 due to a lack of time to edit, in my view under uncontroversial circumstances. Although I still don't have lots of time to devote to WP-related matters, I have sometimes missed the ability to block vandals quickly, and perform certain maintenance tasks. I wonder if it is possible to have the sysop-bit restored? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objections; while it's been a while since you've had the sysop bit, you've been active on Wikipedia, and know about changes in policy in that time. Ral315 (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - you are once again an administrator. WjBscribe 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now what did that "delete" tab at the top of the page do again...? :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, they've made it impossible to delete the Main Page, and any page with over 5,000 revisions, since you were last an administrator. That kind of ruins the fun of being able to lose the history of large pages like United States :) Ral315 (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're going to have to try harder than that to get yourself listed on WP:STOCKS. Ronnotel (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So we can't do this anymore? :( Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) Acalamari 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back from me also ;) Anthøny 09:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

/waves -- Avi (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Close withdrawn RFA?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SimpsonsFan08. I removed it from the main RFA page already, but I don't want to miss one of the steps, so I didn't close it. Ral315 (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've closed it: I used the templates listed on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, linked to the candidate's withdrawal, and added the RfA to the appropriate subpage. Acalamari 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew instructions were on one of those pages :) Thanks. Ral315 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Glad to help. Acalamari 22:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BAG request closure

If a crat would liek to close this - ST47 subtly pointed otu that it is about 2 days overdue: Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/ST47 Viridae^Talk 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, all of them are due to be closed. SQL^{Query me!} 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For some rather conservative definitions of subtle ;) I wasn't sure at the time what to do with it, since it looked like discussion was going against the BAG on RFA proposal. It'd be nice if someone'd go visit Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/ST47 and close it :) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BAG Candidacy

I have accepted a nomination to be considered for membership in the Bot Approvals Group. Please express comments and views here. MBisanz ^talk 08:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag

Hello. Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WODUPbot, I'm asking for a bot flag for User:WODUPaccounts to circumvent the 6-per-IP-per-day account creation limit, so that I can better help to clear the backlog of requested accounts. Of course, if the account is given the flag for this purpose, it will not be used to edit; it will only be used to create requested accounts.

With this sysop account, I am affected by neither the account creation throttle nor the antispoof, and I can create any number of accounts that I, with an alternate account, or other WP:ACC volunteers report are similar to existing unused or barely used accounts. With the alternate account, User:WODUPaccounts (previously User:WODUPpuppet), I can create accounts for which there is no conflict and, if there is a conflict, determine whether the request should be denied or fulfilled by a sysop account, but unfortunately, I can only do this until I have created six accounts, thus my request. WODUP 03:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So this account will not in fact be a bot? I am loathe to assign a bot flag to an account that is not automated without some more considerable discussion that this is an appropriate thing to do. Why do you need a separate account for this work? Can it not be done using your admin account, which is not restricted to six account creations per day? WjBscribe 09:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that his admin account will override the similar username restriction. So he could accidentally create an account with a name too similar to an existing account, say User:WJBscr1be and not know it. A bot would not be able to do such a thing. MBisanz ^talk 09:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The software restriction on similar names is fairly hit and miss. I don't know if a request should necessarily always be granted just because the software allows it. My skepticism aside as to the account being needed, I still think some sort of consensus is needed that giving bot flags to accounts that are not bots is appropriate. WjBscribe 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed here. This request, arguably, lies outside of the standard realms of bot-flagging, which would essentially make any bureaucrat action here questionable: there is no substantial community consensus to support the requested flagging. I concur that further discussion is required; perhaps the village pump, or a request for further community input on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WODUPbot (we've had that for a few bots recently), would be prudent? Anthøny 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly this should only be done with BAG approval in line with community consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the BAG seems to have decided this isn't their business either (see the BRfA cited above), since the account wouldn't actually be used as a bot. Maybe a quick poll at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (and/or (proposals)) could provide the requested community input? I think the most common reaction from the hoi polloi is likely to be "Meh." though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot flag is needed to work around bugzilla:13426. From my point of view, I don't see any issues with giving a bot flag (whose purpose in this case is to work around rate limits) to an admin, who already has the ability to work around rate limits. This mess is all caused by the fact that there's one action that only non-admins can do... Of course, if any edits are made under the flagged account, an immediate revoke bot flag is warranted. --ais523 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bot flags for admins' alternate accounts to help WP:ACC to see if there's wider consensus for this. I think that that is the best venue for this discussion that's been proposed. It's seen by enough people, and while this request involves bot flags, it doesn't involve any automated process and does, I think, fall outside the responsibilities of the BAG. WODUP 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't a bot and so falls outside BAG's scope. If the discussion at the VP shows that the community would like a bureaucrat to grant a bot flag to be used in this slightly unorthodox manner - I will do so. WjBscribe 18:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While it looked like there was consensus, bugzilla:13498 has been resolved and the user group accountcreators created which allows unlimited (I think) account creations, so this is no longer necessary. WODUP 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RFB problem

There is a problem at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report, Avraham for RfB isn't appearing, so results are possibly being skewed, as only RfA regulars may be aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2, and someone fixed it. Went almost 24 hours without being listed: not good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Three places its been mentioned... I'll put here the response found elsewhere as well. The RfB report you use is transcluded onto about 10 different pages. WJBscribe just about immediately changed the report here and on WT:RfA when the RfB was transcluded, and the transclusion on to WP:RfA by Avi showed on the RfA watchlist. The RfB/RfA report used by a number of people, compiled by SQL, does in fact list the RfBs. I wouldn't want the results of this RfB to be unfairly questioned by anyone who mistakenly believed its publication was any less than that of any other RfB. Avruch ^T 13:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still don't know the answer to this question, and there are still pages outdated. Can someone pls clearly spell out for the "unitiated" which page we should be using to track RfAs and RfBs? Currently, neither User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report nor Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report are correct. Also, Avruch, please don't remove my posts: this is something that needs to be sorted for us "non-regulars" who don't know the ins and outs of these different pages, and need to know how to stay better informed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What is incorrect about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report? --barneca (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

At the time I posted, it was completely empty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just tracked down User:SQL/RfX Report from this page; is it an accurate report? If the others are inaccurate, why isn't a flag added to them so that the editors using them will become aware that, while they think they are following RfA and RfB, they are actually missing some? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, SQL said that he was no longer maintaining the report, so the accuracy cannot be vouched for. -- Avi (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The reports seem fine to me. They are usually updated about every 30 mins by a bot - does that explain the inaccuracy you saw, Sandy, or is there something amiss with them that I haven't spotted? WjBscribe 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to help, WJB. At the time I posted, one of them was a completely empty report, and the other had RFAs, but not RFBs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this has been rather cross-posted, a copy of my comment from the RfB talkpage:

I see no reason to believe results will be skewed. I changed the reports on the two most visited pages that have them - WT:RFA and WP:BN to one that displayed RfB as well within a few hours of this RfB. If people choose to use Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report (I note that it has few incoming links/transclusions - [7]) rather than SQL Bot's report, they have to accept the limitation that RfB have to be manually added to that page. I don't accept your view that "RfA regulars" have a particular mindset in favour of supporting - in my experience those who regularly participate in this area are a fairly unforgiving crowd should they find fault with a candidate. This RfB has nearly 6 more days to run in any event. Plenty of time for very diverse participation... WjBscribe 11:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is putting rather a lot of weight on the bot reports. They are not a necessary part of the process and RfA/RfB would function perfectly fine without them. Whilst they give an indication of the progress of a discussion, they should never be seen as an "accurate" reflection given that all they provide is numbers and RfA/RfB are consensus finding exercises, not votes. This is something that needs to be sorted for us "non-regulars" who don't know the ins and outs of these different pages, and need to know how to stay better informed: I don't follow this comment at all. If you want to be informed about RfA/RfB, the page to keep an eye on is WP:RFA. Users have been kind enough to provide bot reports, they are not foolproof - one includes RfB results and the other does not. People are free to transclude or consult either of these reports. Their accuracy is dependent on the bots that update them (and in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA and RfB Report, a person remembering to add the RfBs to it. If you think the reports require some sort of "flag", this is a wiki so feel free to add one. WjBscribe 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you all could accept the fact that some of us have these pages transcluded and thought they were accurate, and I at least don't usually know which SQL report people are referring to in these threads, since there seem to be two of them, the issue (if I'm understanding it) seems to be that none of these reports are accurate. Is that correct? If so, would it be appropriate to add notes to them saying something to that effect, so that the editors who have them transcluded will be aware ? Sorry if this is all clear to all of you, but it's not clear to me (yet). The explanation of consensus is appreciated, but I hope I don't need it at this stage, WJB :-) What I do need is a simple answer to whether any of these reports accurately apprise editors of what RfAs and RfBs are up, or if the only means of knowing that accurately is watchlisting those pages. Yes or no works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The page isn't maintained frequently because it isn't in common use - its linked to in 18 places, transcluded in three. Three of the links are in archives, one of the transclusions is, and 4 or 5 of the other links are in discussions started by you about the problem. I can see your point if it was a commonly used method of finding out what was going on and it wasn't being updated. The fact that the Tango report doesn't include RfBs has been a known issue for a long time - when we had the flood of RfBs awhile back, SQL put out a report that includes RfBs. WjB switched WT:RFA and WP:BN to that report when Avi transcluded his nom. Hopefully the changes that were made caught most of those folks that weren't watchlisting WP:RFA itself - unfortunately it isn't a perfect system of publicizing RfA/RfB activity, but its pretty good all things considered. Avruch ^T 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding general accuracy... They are usually accurate to within how often they are updated (30 minutes is the standard). Fast moving noms change much more quickly, of course, so they can get a little out of date. Tango's report has features that SQL's doesn't, so when there isn't an RfB on we switch back to Tango's. I'm not sure why it was blank temporarily... That is a problem, perhaps if SQL is following this thread he can weigh in on that. Avruch ^T 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> The page. Avruch, which page? We're talking about (at least) three of them. "Known issue for a long time"? I get around quite a bit on Wiki and so far, none of this is known to me, and I'm still trying to sort it out, so I'm not sure how widely any of this is known (hence my references to "RFA regulars" ... I guess this is what some people feel like when they try to sort out common knowledge at FAC and FAR). I still don't know if there is one of these three reports that I can rely on to know when a new RfB comes up; when the flood came up a while back, the reports seemed to be working, so I thought I had my bases covered without watchlisting the pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for being unclear - I was referring to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RfA_and_RfB_Report which you mentioned in your initial comments. That page typically transcludes the report by Tangobot, and currently displays the report by SQLbot. Those are the only two bot reports for tracking WP:RfA activity. I don't remember if the Tango box mentions not showing RfBs - if it doesn't, it probably should you are right about that. If you want to stick with a report for good, I'd go with the SQL report. It doesn't light up based on the percentage or how close the end time is, but it has the crucial information there. If it breaks, though, since SQL isn't maintaining it I'm not sure what your other options would be. Avruch ^T 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As a brief comment, SQLbot's RfA/RfB report has a tendancy to blank its report; I've had to revert it on a number of occasions. Not having access to the code myself, I'm unsure what specifically throws it off, and I would not like to speculate on the basis of a rough guess; perhaps SQL himself would be the best guy to consult.

With regards to the bot only updating every half hour or so/failing to update for long periods of time, I do think inaccurate results could prompt an editor to go neutral when s/he would have supported, and vice versa: it's all part of the bandwagon mentality. Just a vague and tentative suggestion here, but perhaps removing the vote count and majority entry from the report tables would be a good move? I don't wish to start another game of ping-pong, as we had with the RfA tallies a while back (whereby one week seen tally-less RfAs, and the next would see them making a re-appearance), but I'd still like to throw the idea out there. Anthøny 21:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Other locations of this thread

• Thread located at Avi's RfB: here.
• Thread at WT:RFA: here.

Avruch ^T 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/ST47

Resolved

 – Request closed and archived. Anthøny 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are we going to do with this? Although it sounds a lot like I'm passing the buck, I don't think it's possible for anyone to give an impartial comment on this at WT:BAG or WP:BON, without it turning into another poll on ST47. Happy‑melon 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How are the bureaucrats actually supposed to close this discussion? They're here to guage the communities consensus, but there's no community consensus on what the passing area should be. The request would clearly be in a grey area, but how close to passing/failing we do not know without far more community discussion. The other requests we much more clear so sensible closes could be made without that discussion - this one's different. I would suggest that someone closes this as null and void, allowing ST47 to carry on in BAG but from the discussion he was originally appointed, not Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/ST47. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the question, isn't it? What I meant above is, you won't be able to get a sensible discussion amongst the people who commented there, because those who voted oppose and those who support the RfA-style process will be partisan and want it closed yay or nay; and those who supported ST47 (and those who disapprove of the RfA-style process) will want it nullified. It's really a case of evaluating the flimsy consensus that exists as to whether or not the process should be allowed to produce a non-clear-cut result, or even a possible "unsuccessful" result. Happy‑melon 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not sure you can judge a consensus of a discussion, where the process has no consensus about what ammounts to a successful and unsuccessful result. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true, and you certainly no one involved in the discussion can claim an impartial perspective as to whether A) the candidacy should be judged successful or unsuccessful, and B) whether the candidacy should be judged at all. But we do have to do something with it, or it'll keep collecting comments until the end of time. Happy‑melon 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can accurately close this as community consensus for the reasons I've already described, hence why I beliece a null and void close would be best, going back to the status quo. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't commented in it, which makes me more neutral than some, but I am a supporter of the RfA-style process, so I couldn't claim to be entirely unbiased (since having a candidacy annulled through lack of consensus about the process does said process some credibility damage). The candidacy currently stands at ~65% support, or ~60% if you include the neutrals in the total count; that would not normally pass an RfA, for instance. However, I do agree that the crats currently have very little to go on as to whether the bar for RfBAGs should be higher or lower than RfA. I am avoiding expressing a preference either way, but I do maintain that it needs to be dealt with with some sense of urgency, or it'll just keep attracting comments until kindgom come. Happy‑melon 22:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

May I note that this is at the same place as Coren's was (23/9/2)? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge difference however in the v alue of the opposes. Corens opposes were for the process and not concerns about him as a member of BAG. The concerns in your request directly relate to you and your editing. Still, I'm unconvinced that this can be fairly closed as successful or unsuccessful. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I plan to close this as a no change in status if no bcrat objects. While I don't share the same sense of urgency that Happy-melon has since in a consensus gathering exercise there is no real problem with gathering comments, I have however closed it to new comments because I have declared my intent on how I plan to close it. While the discussion may not be read as one that would have consensus to promote someone to a new status, the various uncertainties involved also don't lend any strong evidence for consensus to remove a status either. - Taxman ^Talk 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellently said and the right move in my opinion, although I have no say in these things :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me, Taxman. WjBscribe 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed it. But Ilmari's is still up there and we should probably come to some decision on that as well. - Taxman ^Talk 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(OverlordQ's is also still up, and 5 days overdue, if anyone feels like closing it... :P ) SQL^{Query me!} 12:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up note, all requests for BAG membership have been closed, and none are presently outstanding. Anthøny 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello Bureaucrats. I have a slightly out-of-process favour to ask of your cadre. Some of you may be aware of the tortuous RfAR about, and known as, "The Troubles" that transpired last year. In the centre of that has been an editor known as Vintagekits (talk · contribs) who has proved to be a real challenge for the project to deal with. Well, in the last few weeks there has been a new proposal put forward to manage Vk and, if successful, perhaps other editors in similar situations. The discussion has flowed across ANI and other venues.

Somewhat remarkably for this difficult subject, the discussion has managed to remain civil and there appears to be real progress towards community agreement. The suggestions have been boiled down to three popular options, which have been undergoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits proposed unblocking. I, and others believe this could be an real opportunity to end, once and for all, what has been a real thorn in our side.

The best outcome would be an uncontested consensus from the community on which option we should proceed with. As I'm sure you all know more than most, that is often not the reality. Therefore, in closing the discussion and interpreting the community will, what we need is someone completely independent, someone with skill and judgment and someone who is not afraid to be creative. This, of course, is why I came to you guys ;). So my plea is that either an individual or a small group of you volunteer to review the discussion there over the next few days, and determine what the best course of action is based on the community opinions expressed.

I appreciate that isn't actually your job, but we have been working outside the box on this proposal so far and things are going pretty well, so we think that this conclusion would be agreeable. As it happens, It looks to me that there may well be a consensus and it may not be too difficult or controversial a job, but that may change. If you were to determine that there is no real consensus, then that is fine also. We can go back to the drawing board. We just need someone with the respect of the community to tell us what, deep down, we all should be able to work out for ourselves!

So would anyone be willing to step forward? I'd be most grateful, and in return would be willing to put in a good week's work on an article of the volunteer's choice. Rockpocket 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrat, but I'm relatively neutral on all this and I was thinking of closing the discussion after a few more days input. I haven't got any thoughts on whether or not VK should be unblocked, so I think I'm able to view what the consensus is, and I've kept up to date with thinks as they've progressed. Would you be happy with me closing it after 72/96 hours? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fine by me, Ryan. Thanks. Rockpocket 06:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be closed, and VK unblocked, at a suitable time, by a Crat or an Arb so that the whole things appears whiter than white, I also think if VK does fail to abide by the rules the blocking should be done by an Arb or a Crat - but hopefully it won't come to that. Giano (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly outside of our traditional role, but I for one would be happy to make a decision on it if people think it would help. Provided of course that VK agrees to the terms. VK must make some impressive contributions for people to think all this is worth it. All in all though if that many people are willing to watch this it seems like a low risk plan. We can give some time for people to weigh in then judge if the consensus is that the plan should go forward. It does seem to be heading that way. - Taxman ^Talk 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

VK has commented on this matter here [8], obviously that is the only pplace he can comment. Giano (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm generally in favour of WP:SNOW closures where consensus seems clear, I think that Ryan's suggestion of giving it 72 or 96 hours sounds like the right approach for this case, giving time for anyone else to comment on an issue which has been very contentious in the past. I'd be happy for Ryan or Taxman to do the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The clearer it is the less time needed, but I'd like to give it at least some more. - Taxman ^Talk 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your motivation for requesting a Bureaucrat to close the discussion, Rockpocket: their traditional role of interpreting community consensus could well prove useful in the closure of such a complicated and extended discussion. However, I would clarify that such an action would be in their role as an uninvolved, closing editor, rather than as a bureaucrat, and that any proposals for bureaucrats to close any such discussions whilst wearing their 'crat hat, so to speak, would absolutely have to be discussed and approved by the community beforehand. Anthøny 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I came here because bureaucrats, as a group, have demonstrated the skills and traits we value in determining a consensus, not because I would like a bureaucrat sanctioned closure. If a 'crat does close, they (or I) can make that very clear. Since I have been heavily involved in the proposal, I would rather not make a decision on who specifically closes lest it appear I am attempting to manipulate an outcome. I personally have no problem with whoever closes, but if we have a few volunteers, perhaps it could even be together. If two editors come to the same conclusion then it would be even better. I'll leave it up to you to decide who and when among yourselves, and again thank you. Rockpocket 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rocketpocket made it clear in his request that this was an outside the box idea that means necessarily that it is outside the traditional role and thus not planned to be a regular thing. If this were to be anything but a one off, then I share your concerns on the need for wide approval. - Taxman ^Talk 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Crat Chats

Given how important the results of a Bureaucrat chat can be - especially for the candidate! - I think that the actual chat page itself should have more than just an italicized admonishment that non-bureaucrats should not edit the page. Being bored as I am at the moment, I put a template together to use as a talkpageheader-style template for crat chats. Would there be an objections to using this template on cratchats such as the current discussion for Avraham? The template is {{Cratchat}}. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice. Happy‑melon 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but no offense, I think this is a case where if people don't know the culture and don't read the italicized message, the template is just another thing to be ignored. Any comments not by bcrats can easily be removed just the same. If you'd like to fix some templates, fix {{BRFAA}} instead. :) It subst's incorrectly into Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved when there is a space in the bot name and part of it is redundant in most cases. See the talk page. - Taxman ^Talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A very sticky situation

Resolved

 – Okay, we've established that nothing is going to happen here. Saying anything more is going to be unproductive at best, and (potentially) interpreted as attacking at worst; we should just move right along... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of recent troll attacks to pages in my userspace, all pages in my userspace and usertalk space are move-protected to admins. In addition, many vital pages in my userspace are fully protected. I have a very urgent need to be an admin now, as maintenance of my userspace is near-impossible, but unfortunately, an RFA on my account would disastrously fail. I'm asking here - what would be the best course of action? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A relaxing bath; a long, cold, drink; and a day or two away from your computer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, sounds like you're rather stuck. You could have your pages downgraded to semi-protection, so that you can still edit them, but other than that, you're out of luck. Not sure why this is posted here, either; the bureaucrats can't do anything to assist unless you run a successful RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a post to AN when you need a page moving. I'm sorry Secptre, but there's no way you're going to get a crat to sysop you so you can move pages in your userspace. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it would be very unlikely that'd happen. I was thinking about whether a (closely watched) alternate account would be sysopped just for this purpose - I do not want to spam AN or RFPP. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Again Sceptre, there's no way that would happen. I'm sorry, but AN, or the edit protected templates are your only options. Or.... reduce it to semi and see how it goes? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, I could run for RFA again. Very risky and likely to fail, but other than spamming AN, I don't really have any option. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Which are these "vital pages", that make this such a priority? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for example, User:Sceptre/head and User:Sceptre/head2 were full-protected and it was very annoying getting the problem fixed. I don't know what else is full-protected, but large transclusions may be. My talk page is also move protected, which makes archiving a hassle too. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Annoying isn't the same as "vital". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I know this won't find any traction here, so I don't know why I'm speaking up, especially since I often find myself mildly quite annoyed by Sceptre's approach to a lot of things. But I'm annoyed by trolls even more. I'd actually favor, in the spirit of IAR, giving Sceptre a sysopped alternate account, User:SceptreUserSpace, with the understanding that if the admin account ever edited anything, anything at all, even BLP stuff, even reverting bomb threats outside Sceptre's user space, the account would be desysoped, and Sceptre would be forced to add a big scarlet "A" to his signature, or be blocked forever and ever. I guarantee there would be tons of people willing to watch that account and block the hell out of it if it strayed. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 23:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the exact thing I was actually thinking of before I posted the thread. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to start down that slippery slope, good: I need a sysop account to deal with malformed FACs and FARs. Open the floodgates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But you could get a real one if you wanted. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 11:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't edit your userspace. Yes, it's annoying, but it's not something you need to do to work on the encyclopedia anyway. You can still edit virtually every other page on the site. If I was unable to edit my userspace for a month, it wouldn't really affect me. So, in summary, I will not sysop you. It is unnecessary. --Deskana (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Two cents. I highly respect Barneca, but I feel that wouldn't really be a good idea. Just in principle I think, nothng against Sceptre. It's just unfortunate. Just continue editing and post to AN. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, rename everything in his user space to User:Sceptre/*.js (like, for example, User:Sceptre/head.js). Then, only he and admins could edit it. No idea if it would actually work, or if you can even transclude .js pages, but I'm a genius if it does. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already been done, but for some cases (talk page, archives), it's not enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I came up with that independently, not knowing you'd already done it, and on the spot, and I'm not technically savvy, so I should get some kind of credit from the teeming masses for thinking outside the box (I thought up heated exterior rear-view mirrors independently too, only to discover they had just been invented by some jerk at Lexus or Mercedes or somewhere).

Second, I just checked, and you can transclude *.js pages, so I would imagine there aren't actually that many issues besides archiving a talk page. Third, there are other ways to archive a talk page. Fourth, for those few occasions when *.js just doesn't work, you can bug pretty much any admin you see active, or post to AN. So, I lost my chance to ever be a bureaucrat in the future for nothing! --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous request to be making. There is no reason you can't live with "maintaining" your userspace for a month. Even if you "can't", it's still no reason to sysop you. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Were I of a less tolerant and understanding nature, I might have been inclined to suggest that the "vital" pages in wikipedia are the encyclopedia pages, and that any admin wannabee who doesn't understand that is unsuitable for the job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AD and MF - userspace is not vital at all, just enjoy the article editing and leave it be for a while. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but requests like this should be swiftly denied and archived. Andre (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe thought was even given to consider this request. It should be noted you can do much more with a sysop account then can be recorded in any logs. You can review deleted articles, etc, stuff that is off limits to regular viewers. Monobi (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Viewing deleted materials

Pas apropos and resolved and everything, but why exactly is there a special class of editors who can view deleted articles? Why can't everyone do that? BLPs, copyvios, RFOs and some other special cases aside, why can't I see the same things you see? Where is the harm to the wiki? Just asking... Franamax (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:PERENNIAL#Deleted_pages_should_be_visible, and Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles, and Wikipedia:Trash namespace. MBisanz ^talk 08:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also isn't there something about "admins who will retrieve deleted entries on request", which is great, unless you don't know what exactly to ask for, what with not being able to see what it was that is now not there? And then again, the alternative of combining "google", "deletion" and "pedia" in creative ways? I'll check the links you've given, carefully, even the four-year-old one, but help me out - is this consensus or apathy+entrenched-privilege? Franamax (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is/was why adminship was no big deal - I guess the idea is that once someone is around for a bit they become an admin...speaking of which....(must move this) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I used to be annoyed that I couldn't see deleted contributions (mainly my own ones), but now that I can see all deleted contributions, I see why not. There is stuff that should be oversighted which doesn't get oversighted, and sensitive stuff in some deleted contributions that shouldn't be visible to anyone. There are also some sensitive deleted images as well (I've never been clear if deleted images can be oversighted). Also, even though there are no actual logs, I suspect people shouldn't assume that views of deleted pages are not recorded somewhere, the same way that views of visible pages are. Similarly for page previews. Presumably, when you click "preview", the text still gets transmitted to and from a server. Presumably the "preview" stuff is lost once the final change is committed, and only the final change is recorded in the page history. But I've never asked, so I don't know for sure. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, everything from the pages you view, to the terms you search, to the logs you query, is recorded, although I think only the lead devs (not even the CUs) have access to everything. Franamax, I don't think it apathy to change so much as an apathy to designing a way to sort deleted material into harmless and non-harmless categories. Like right now there is a dicussion on AN/ANI from a guy who had a friend create a nonsense bio that was cached to google before being speedy'd and his father saw the cache and got mad at him. If we had 2 levels of deleted (hidden and non-viewable) it would be more difficult. Although if you'd just look at WP:RFA and finally run, we wouldnt have this issue. :) MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser logs some things that you really wouldn't expect it to (can't say what: WP:BEANS), but it certainly doesn't what deleted revisions people have been accessing. --Deskana (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some fundamental misunderstandings of what Checkuser is here. Checkuser is an on-Wiki interface, for pulling certain aspects of Wikimedia's server logs. Server logs are rolls of technical information on all accesses to a certain site, relevant to suitable boundaries. Such server logs may contain: XFF information, ip address, the account edited from (checkuser also provides user links for that, I believe), etc. It also displays the number of edits that (for example) IP address 123.456.0.0 made within time frame 1 March 2008-2 March 2008. Edit count is the furthest a checkuser can go into identifying the actions of an account: short of manually looking up the deletion, upload, etc. logs, and the edit history of a user, nothing else can be found out–not page views, etc.

I hope this clears things up :)

Anthøny 21:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot about the browser they use :-). But yes, I can confirm as a developer that the only logged stuff by CheckUser is logged when you make an edit. There's just too much data, otherwise. Systems administrators have further options of retrieving anything stored on the server, which, unless set up before the fact, does not include full server logs. — Werdna talk 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BAG membership discussions

There are quite a few BAG member nominations at WT:BAG that could be closed by any crat who feels like doing so. Any discussion over 1 week old that has had adequate participation can be closed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A bot could help clerk for WP:CHU?

Hey, I've been reading WP:CHU occasionally, and today, MBisanz gave Cobi and I a suggestion for a bot to analyze requests. I realize that this could be possible, and would probably be beneficial. It would detect whether the request was made by an IP, or if it gives the reason as "Reason for requested renaming." (the default). Those are just a few examples, and I'd like to get some crat's ideas on the matter. It seems like it would save a lot of work. Soxred93 (u t) 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea! He spelled my name right. A wiki-first. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The clerk in the heading threw me off, since that usually means a person and we have those. But yes, anything to automate the process and reduce the human overhead would be good. The things you've outlined sound like a good idea and try to think of anything else that can be automated. Personally I think we should mostly do away with renaming, since it draws important resources away from editing and adds little value, but strangely enough I don't seem to be joined by many people in that opinion. - Taxman ^Talk 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I replaced the heading. It was: Clerk for WP:CHU? EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, some editors may desire performing these clerk activities. Such experience could be used as a stepping-stone toward becoming a Bureaucrat. Automating these activities might take take this potential experience away from interested editors. Kingturtle (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kingturtle. If editors or clerks, don't familiarise themselves with username policy often enough, they'll potentially forget it, being a hindrance if they wished to pursue the line of bureaucrat. Rudget (Help?) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strenuously with you both. The purpose of our project is not to peddle influence with easily automated ceremonial tasks. Bots are good and we should not let political "stepping-stone[s]" get in the way of a useful idea. Andre (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no back log at WP:CHU. Such a bot is unnecessary at this time. There are however a number of other issues with large backlogs that could use the service of a bot. Kingturtle (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind pointing out where? Soxred93 (u t) 21:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A BRFA for this bot has been added at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot VI. Soxred93 (u t) 23:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Crats may want to take a look

At this discussion: [9] . Maxim_(talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic rename by a steward

I would like some thoughts on how to deal with a recent renaming that is rather problematic. Today, steward Darkoneko temporarily gave himself bureaucrat rights here in order to perform a usurpation [10]. The usurped account had nearly 6,000 edits but has been inactive for some time. A request to usurp this account was made by a frwiki admin who edits using the same name for SUL compliance in March and declined by myself on the basis that it lay outside the our current local policy for renaming accounts without their agreement. It was in my opinion totally inappropriate for a steward to give himself bureaucrat rights on a project which already had local bureaucrats, let alone to perform a request already denied by a locally appointed bureaucrat and I have taken this matter up with the steward concerned.

The question remains whether this action should be reversed. I am aware that though I may be entitled to simply rename the account back, this would in effect be a "crat wheel war" so I am looking for consensus on the matter. Should the situation be left as it, or should I rename the account back? WjBscribe 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename it back; stewards cannot override local policy. Darkoneko knows full well enwiki has its own bureaucrats, and this action was very inappropriate. Additionally, it's not a "wheelwar" as Darkoneko isn't a bureaucrat. You are free to override at your choice. Al Tally (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, rename it back seems the most appropriate course of action here. Usurping an account with 6000 edits without permission is simply wrong, especially with no local discussion. I would expect this sort of thing to be done after serious community discussion, although I highly doubt it would ever succeed. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur here with Majorly: Darkoneko's action was, all things aside, inappropriate. The action circumvented our relevant policies here on enwiki, and it would not be prudent for it to stand. WJB, I'd support any action you take, that reverses this; furthermore, I support your move to take the matter up with the Steward in question. Perhaps the underlying issue was a lack of understanding as to the processes in question; as we're assuming good faith, I for one presume it was, in which case, it will need to be remedied. To answer your original enquiry, however, as a matter of principle, and per our community's long standing consensus (reflected in the usurpation policies) the action needs to be reversed. Anthøny 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The action should definitely be reversed - that's a shocking violation of the steward policy. Happy‑melon 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments, and someone active at Wiktionary should let them know the same name change was performed there. NoSeptember 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that as User:Serein has unified their global login, I cannot reverse the Darkoneko's action - the global account will need to be deleted by a steward first. I will ask him to do so. If he refuses, I will see if any other stewards will do it. WjBscribe 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

My apologies for the ruckus I caused. I'm inviting you to read the reasons for this action at meta:User_talk:Darkoneko#User:Serein.40enwiki.

Putting that event aside, I believe that this renaming policy will be causing problems with the SUL, as on the long-term, all accounts are to be "global-ized".

thanks. DarkoNeko x 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there are absolutely no circumstances in which a steward is permitted to make an action such as this, to deliberately override the previous action of a local bureaucrat. SUL does not, by policy or common practice, provide exempt from these rigid rules. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WJScribe, what would be the resources needed to effect such a rollback, with respect to the server processing and the effect on SUL? If the hit is hard, then effecting a rollback may create a big mess. However if not, then I support a rollback. My reasons are:

• The move transgresses the authority of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are created as they would be better able to serve the local large wikiproject. The steward in this case is not aware of the rules.
• SUL does not advocate a forcible renaming on any wiki. As per our policy on en-wiki (and I think all over), a single edit by an account negates any claim for it to be usurped.
• This has serious implications. Tomorrow, if I go on a wikibreak, a person can can create an account on another wiki, and then use a bot to jack up his edit count to beat mine. So, when I log in to account on en-wikipedia after a month, I am left out in the cold. We cannot allow this to happen.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The original SUL process proposed by Brion, would have allowed the person with the most edits at the time of unification to win control of all accounts bearing a given name (everyone else be damned). The SUL test process that has been implemented is somewhat different than that original proposal, but I think some people may have been thinking of the original proposed process. Currently EN, DE, PL, and IT require that the target account has no edits. ZH and AR wikis apparently allow usurpation of any inactive account provided the user doesn't object after a 7 day notice. FR (Darkoneko's primary wiki), allows usurpation if the target has only a few or old contributions (without a lot of clarification). Dragons flight (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Darkoneko definitely went about this the wrong way, but that doesn't change that he is probably right about the conflict with our usurpation policy and SUL. The FR usurp policy apparently changed to adjust for SUL since I had read that previously they were not allowed at all, even for SUL. I don't read French though, so I didn't verify that myself. We may very well need to change our policy to make way for SUL as well. - Taxman ^Talk 12:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, DarkoNeko remove the SUL for Serein, so a 'crat can undo the rename at will per our local policy. Maxim_(talk) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though it was done the wrong way, I'd rather we left it, now that it has been done. It has cleared the way for the global account, and it's probably what's going to have to be done eventually anyway. - Taxman ^Talk 13:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta's m:Help:Unified login currently gives discretion over the handling of SUL usurpations to local communities. Personally, unless absolutely required on technical grounds, I would be opposed to SUL usurpations that rename established accounts (e.g. those with substantial local history). Dragons flight (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it does give that discretion, but we don't need to use it to make SUL harder. Although my preference would be that SUL simply keeps track of the numerical account IDs and tracks them that way. Then we don't have to deal with any of this mess. Then I could still log in once and use any of my accounts, whether or not the username matched, and it could be verified they are all mine and are a global account. Seems easier to me, but nobody called me to ask how to do it. :) Yes, I see the downside in that people have different names on different wiki's, but we already have that and we manage. Currently to have a global account you have to have your username in the same script, ie on the Hindi wikipedia, I can't have my username be in Devanagari and have it part of my global account. - Taxman ^Talk 13:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The right to attribution is one of the few fundemental rights granted to authors under the GFDL. In my opinion, tampering with the way edits are attributed against an editor's will is unethical and one could make a plausible argument that it is a breach of the GFDL as well. I realize that not usurping established accounts will lead to global accounts that are perpetually "incomplete" by leaving conflicts in place. In my opinion, however, it is less offensive to deny someone a complete global account (which they don't currently have) than to forcible take away someone else's chosen name on their local wiki. Dragons flight (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry because I made a mistake. I should not have to ask Darkoneko rename my account. However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that my problem will certainly happen again for other people and it serves no purpose to the archive without benefit of SUL to resolve it, as you did. I have a number of contributions are allocated to me when they were made by another. This is in contradiction with the GFDL. Fortunately, my namesake English has the air of having been a good contributor, but it can cause problems for others. Please forgive me yet, I understand that this is a big mistake. (Excuse me, I do not speak English perfectly) --Serein (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is as an admin and trusted user, you should have known ahead of time that you shouldn't have done what you did and not done it. Because of the poor way you handled this and the improper way DarkoNeko implemented it, I am also tempted to reverse it, but I believe those are the wrong reasons to do it for. - Taxman ^Talk 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the right to attribution does not require the account maintains the user's chosen name. Attribution is maintained with renaming. At any rate, we're way off topic here into things that should be discussed on pages specifically dealing with SUL. - Taxman ^Talk 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are off-topic. Though you were the one that suggested that enwiki change its policy in light of SUL. I am merely offering my opinion that enwiki's policy is appropriate even in the face of SUL. What forum would you suggest? There is also a short discussion of these points on foundation-l. Dragons flight (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There unfortunately doesn't appear to be a really good place. Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations seems the best candidate as there was a previous discussion on the issue before the current global account system was properly finalized and explained I think. The problem is this intersects WP:SUL (which doesn't exist here on en.wiki) and the username policy (which doesn't have the material from the top of Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations in it currently. - Taxman ^Talk 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to start a general discussion at Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames, which I advertised fairly broadly at the time, but there was little interest. Perhaps this noticeboard is as good a place as any. I think it would make sense to expand the range of accounts we allow to be usurped where the request is for SUL compliance. WjBscribe 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To expand on my brief comment above: I think that it is especially important to reverse this move (given that now Serein's global account has been deleted to allow it) to ensure that we can have an open discussion about this. The hell wiki doesn't operate on precedent: the difference between the perceptions of "someone did this in direct contravention of policy, so we reverted it, but it does raise some legitimate issues so we're discussing them" and "someone did this in direct contravention of policy, but it raised some issues so we left it as it was and started thinking about them" is tremendous: the latter leaves no choice but to conclude that the issues are insurmountable. In fact, the architects of SUL have explicitly indicated that we make the decision about whether to allow SUL usurpations or not, so we should be left free to make our own minds up without an overlying perception that our policy is so misguided that stewards can ignore it. Happy‑melon 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the difference is tremendous or, more to the point, important. We can or should all be able to separate the issues. Something was done improperly. Now we discuss what we should do going forward and whether we should reverse the action because it was the wrong thing to do. Reversing it because it was done improperly is a waste of time and resources, particularly if we decide it should in fact have been done but now through the proper channels. What do you propose we do then, go and do another 6000 edit rename (which would make the third time) just so we can say we did it right? That is certainly not needed in order for everyone to know that the way it was done was wrong and that it should never be done that way again. Below we are having the proper discussion about what should be done and I posit that that is the only important discussion that impacts whether this rename should be undone or not. - Taxman ^Talk 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there is much less danger of it setting a precedent in the sense of other people proceeding to do the same thing before we've had the appropriate discussion, as this is a function which a much smaller group of users have access to - I think we can trust our 27 bureaucrats and 40 stewards not to try a stunt like this again. I guess you just have more faith in the community's ability to separate past from present than I do... Happy‑melon 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, has this been reversed yet? It should be. R. Baley (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Easier said than done. I don't think anyone expected something like this could happen... bibliomaniac15 03:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, he asked to usurp, and was turned down. Then, against enwiki policy/guideline -whatever, he later used his steward position to give himself bureaucrat tools and did it anyway. He has asked us to look at arguments in favor of this action, but personally I wouldn't look at anything, until the situation was restored to as it was before this out of process violation took place. 6000 edits, and he just took them -like they didn't mean a damn thing. Undo please -then discuss- that's fundamental. It's not a "ruckus", it's offensive. (btw, don't know if the account holder is a "him" or her" -no offense intended if wrong.) R. Baley (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The problem is that it is technically impossible to undo it until a steward deletes the global account (I think this may have already been done). Also, after being turned down, he asked a steward, he is not a steward himself. He also did not "take" the edits, when the account was renamed, the edits were re-attributed to the new name as well. But, yes, it does need to be undone and then discussed. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, please read above. We're discussing whether it should be undone by discussing the issue in general in the below section. A general mark of maturity is being able to separate issues that are in fact not dependent on one another. That is the case here and we don't need to reverse this action in order to be able to decide whether it should be reversed or kept where it is. There is no rush, so feel free to read the analysis in the section below and add your opinions there. - Taxman ^Talk 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on the information below that full implementation of SUL isn't likely to be a forced situation and instead can remain on a case by case basis, I too now agree that this usurp rename should be undone. It appears that is the consensus here as well. - Taxman ^Talk 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation and SUL: To expand or not to expand?

Ok, given the above discussion and that there is no really good place to discuss this, why not here? I understand what Dragons flight is saying I just don't agree that it is a problem. As mentioned above, the GFDL does require attribution is maintained, it's just that renaming does maintain that attribution. No one has been promised their username is going to be theirs forever no matter how long they are inactive for. My solution for allowing different account names with global accounts doesn't appear to be on the near horizon, though others have suggested it, so we need to do something. Remember the original SUL plan was to automatically usurp accounts and given them to the one with the highest edit count. What we have now is a bit of a compromise where we can have some middle ground and choose better metrics than just edit count. So in short, while I would rather have the better solution implemented so we don't have to deal with this, I agree with WJBscribe that we should expand the range of accounts that can be usurped for SUL. That said, an example of one that perhaps shouldn't have gotten it is Serein above since he had very little en.wiki contributions and thus had no demonstrable need for the account. Another good example would be myself. I certainly didn't need to get 'Taxman' on de.wiki since I don't edit there, it just ended up getting to be part of my global login because the German user that carried that username voluntarily changed username in order to make way for SUL. I'm not sure we need to require substantial previous contributions in English in order to usurp for SUL, but it's something to consider as a way to ensure we don't do it frivolously. Also I would have moved much of the above down here, but it was intertwined enough I didn't want to make a mess. If anyone sees a good way, go for it. - Taxman ^Talk 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I support changing the usurpation policy to permit renaming users who are inactive here if an active user on another project wishes to unify the account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support per CBM. By expanding the usurpation policy we can allow inactive accounts here (most of which have made no significant edits anyway, apart from some which have made important GFDL contributions) to be unified with those on other wikis. Makes sense. Rudget (Help?) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxman, thank you for opening this discussion. For me there are several arguments that I find compelling against any broad expansion of SUL usurpation. Firstly, though there are some exceptions, many users use SUL primarily as a convenience to visit wikis other than the ones they are most active on. I don't consider facilitating the convenience of an occasional visitor as sufficient benefit to justify usurping an established local user, either an active one or an inactive one that might plausibly return. Being forced to relinquish a username one has invested time and effort building a reputation around is likely to be a hurtful experience that would discourage an existing user from continuing or an inactive user from returning. By contrast, asking the off-wiki visitor to use a different username is already a familiar experience that probably will have little impact on that visitor's resulting contributions. In addition to damaging our relationship with a well-established local user, there is the additional problem that well-established users come with baggage in the form of a reputation and dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of talk page references to their account. Right now we have no established facility for cleaning up those old userpage links, and even if we did have such a power it would be even harder to wipe away the prior associations in people's minds. For example, if we had a new Radiant! or Bluemoose or Newyorkbrad, how long would it take to overcome the confusion in the community. For these reasons, I think there has to be some not-too-high limit at which we say established accounts (both active and retired) are ineligible for usurping.

Given your comments above, you may even agree with me that we shouldn't be usurping well-established users. The tricker question is what do we do with accounts that have some good history but are not well-established. Here I know we disagree. I look at this way: If you write a report and place your name on it, e.g. Anthere's 101 Recipes for Linguine, then it would be ethically wrong for me to distribute "Anthere (whose account was renamed for SUL)'s 101 Recipes for Linguine", because I am identifying the authorship in a different way than the author intended. I'm not sure whether doing that violates the GFDL. I'm certain that it would be a violation to change the name and distribute Chef Pierre's 101 Recipes for Linguine without mentioning Anthere, but whether the addition of the parenthetical is a violation or not would probably require a lawyer and/or judge to answer. Regardless of its legal status, I still would not consider it ethical to tack on parentheticals like that. Or to address Taxman's point more directly, as long as we are publishing a user's work, I would consider that we have made a de facto promise to continue attributing it to them in a manner consistent with their original declaration. So for me the threshold for the ethical exercise of usurpation would have to be accounts with no significant acts of authorship. That's not as terribly limiting as you might think since more than half of all registered accounts never edit at all, and a substantial fraction beyond that contribute only vandalism.

That being said, there is really an overriding issue that is outside the scope of an enwiki discussion. How far is the WMF planning to go with SUL? If the WMF really does intend to drive SUL to completion so that no duplicate accounts will remain then my opinions are moot and the global community would be forced to invent some method of conflict resolution. The alternative is to manage global accounts only in the limited form that they are now, and allow local accounts and incomplete mergers to exist perpetually. I've seen several comments to suggest that the later state may be where we are really heading. If so, then there is no incentive to pursue usurpation except where is likely to be immediately reasonable and useful. I emailed a dev to ask about the future of SUL but have not gotten a reply. Dragons flight (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with all the above, but you make some very good points. Your last paragraph though, is indeed the crux of the issue. Because of the way SUL has been presented, most of us I think have been operating under the assumption that your first alternative is what is going to happen. I know I have and that is what I based my above opinion to expand the usurp criteria on. If not, then I agree we can be more selective and do not need to expand our usurp criteria. The question is how do we find more about this? That seems to be the most important thing to find out right now to resolve the issue. The various places where this should be more clear do not seem to be. As noted above my personal preference would be to have different accounts merged in one global account and that potentially could be hastened if we clamp down and don't expand our usurp criteria, though I don't like the idea of holding things hostage that way. Upon re-analysis though, the best option without question is to not expand them until we know for sure what is going on. - Taxman ^Talk 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tim Starling got back to me. He expressed the opinion that we probably are heading for the second track. In other words, global accounts will become more widely available, but conflict resolution will still be handled manually via local wiki policy with no imperative to complete the merge. That would imply that local accounts and some naming conflicts would be allowed to persist indefinitely. Dragons flight (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well based on that new information then I don't see a need to expand the criteria. Yeah it's nice to have a unified login, but it's not so important that we need to be usurping established accounts. I'd like to see something more definitive, say from wide community input, but at this point as long as full SUL implementation isn't going to be forced we can stop assuming that it is going to be until we get definitive information otherwise. - Taxman ^Talk 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I believe that SUL is still currently limited to those with +sysop permissions (or more) - am I correct? Pedro :  Chat  19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently yes, per m:Help:Unified login. My understanding is that this is to test the process and get some of the outstanding bugs fixed. - Taxman ^Talk 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To build on Taxman, I believe the ultimate goal is to roll out m:SUL to all accounts; administrators are currently, in essence, being used as the "test cases" for single user login. Anthøny 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dragon Flight's assessment completely. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Dragon's Flight that we should worry about renaming established but inactive users for SUL. Once SUL is rolled out more broadly, these established users will also own their names everywhere else, so once the initial round of SUL usurpations is completed, there won't be any more of them. In the initial round, if there is an established active user and an established inactive user with the same name, I feel the active user should get the name. In the case of two active users, I hope they can come to an agreement between themselves.

As to whether it breaks GFDL to change someone's name, I think we can fall back on the argument that when someone contributes to they implicitly grant us permission to change things for the purpose of administering the site (this is also the reason, I believe, that we don't worry about other minor GFDL issues such as accidentally lost attribution, etc.). If you feel renaming users against their will is an issue, it would be more compelling to everyone if you could convince Mike Godwin to comment on it, especially since other projects appear to do so, and so if it's a GFDL violation they need to change their practices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(<--outdent)Thanks for that Dragons flight. So I think I'm reading this that in terms of the policy at WP:CHU/U nothing needs to be done? However it may be prudent to consider some relaxation of the rules (depending on GFDL issues). I'm mostly thinking that our requirement In order to ensure that usurped usernames be put to good use, we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users. would be second to a request for the purposes of SUL, and that we may have to set some reasonable bar of edits/tenure on en.wiki, above which we will not allow usurption of the account, irrespective of it being a SUL related request. Pedro :  Chat  14:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the reasonably well established could be determined by contributions to other projects. As above my personal preference though is that someone should have a certain number of contributions at en already or have at least a babel 2 or 3 so that we avoid usurping accounts at the high end of our limit just so someone on another project can have a placeholder account. Again to use me as an example, I do not need the de.wiki Taxman account because I know no German and as a result I have not contributed to that project and I am not likely to. I don't know what everyone thinks, but I'd like to see that taken into consideration. - Taxman ^Talk 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my concern - that we usurp an account with, say, 200 edits but no contributions for a year and then it's just used as a place holder. So I agree "reasonably established" can be judged by contributions to other wikis, but we would need some form of establishment on en.wiki as well to justify usurption (take you point on babel here - good thinking). Noting the conversation on Will's talk page here clearly we're already heading into issues. It seems clear to me that we need some input on our wiki to justify usurptions that are outside of our usual parameters but being made under SUL. Having said that, usurptions of accounts with zero or negligible edits under SUL should be made easier. In summary; our current requirement that a usurped username will "be put to good use" would be secondary to an SUL request. However usurption of an account with a more than negligible level of edits would/should require evidence of more than just "place holding" under SUL. Pedro :  Chat  13:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm saying. It's not that we need to make will "be put to good use" secondary, it's just that we need to judge it differently. For SUL we still want to know it will be used. As above I don't think we need to do usurpations outside our normal criteria (which would amount to expanding them) unless maybe just by a small amount. I don't know though, maybe if global accounts were more useful I'd feel different. Currently you still have to log in to every other wiki. - Taxman ^Talk 13:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's still some issues on meta, and yes I agree that the individual log in is one thing as well. I'm also marginally supprised that SUL accounts don't become autoconfirmed - all though obviously an auto confirm limit is down to the individual wiki. However they're meta problems! So yes, I agree, we should need ot see some benefit to en.wikipedia given how little benefit SUL seems to be giving at the moment. I do think we are going to get some usurp issues on borderline cases though. An es.wikipedia bureaucrat with 20k edits (random example) might well feel a touch miffed If they were unable to usurp an account here with 200 good edits but no activity in three months (which we for sure would not usurp at present). Of course one can hope that such accounts would willingly relinquish their name, but as noted by my diff to the conversation on Will's page, things can go awry and an unanswered e-mail may not actually indicate account abandonment. If we have a relatively fixed local positon (with some minor discretion one way or the other) then that's it. It's en.'s position on where we go to for SUL usurp requests and if you can't have the account, well sorry but that's the way it is. Just my thoughts - we have some way to go on this, IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a massive fan of SUL (though I do a lot more wiki-wandering than most), but I'm forced to agree that eschewing a local user for an admin on a different project, when said admin has no plans to edit here, does seem like a sub-optimal solution. I do solidly believe in the benefits of a single login, though... I'd be comfortable with a six month period of inactivity being grounds for usurpation, with any usurped account being given preferential treatment when they come back and want a rename (ie: they get it done immediately, rather than the sometimes sizable delays at WP:CHU. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(de-dent) - I too like the idea of SUL. For me though, the crux of the issue is how do we determine "inactive"? In my opinion the loss of your account name is far more "meaningful" than (let's say) the loss of adminship. (Comparing this to the proposal which suggested that inactive admins be non-controversially desysopped, with them regaining adminship non-controversially upon simple request to a bureaucrat.)

One of the questions for that discussion was "how long is inactive?" A year seemed comparable to what's being done on meta and elsewhere.

But in losing one's name due to being inactive? For that, the length of inactivity should be longer. 2 or 3 years sounds better, at least. And that's 2 or 3 years of no edits whatsoever. (And presumes that several attempts have been made to contact the user.) - jc37 05:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have seen at least 2 examples of users returning about 2 years of inactivity, so I would err towards the lengthy side, if any period of time is deemed appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the ideas expressed above: I think we're entitled to be a bit selfish on this issue; the most important thing for us is that SUL provides benefits (or at least minimal disadvantages) to our project. That means that when we usurp an 'experienced' account (thereby incurring the potential problem of pissing off a returning contributor) we should be able to expect a reasonable benefit to the project (ie that the usurper will actually make use of their SUL and be active on this project). Remember, at the moment everyone with access to SUL has crat or sysop rights on another wiki, but that won't always be the case. I think the only people who should have the automatic right to usurp anyone who gets in their way are the stewards, and only because of the nature of their userrights and the work they do. My heuristic for deciding when to allow a usurpation would be: "has the target account been inactive for more than a year... and has the usurping account been more active than the target account on en.wiki over the past three years"?? You can play around with the numbers a little, but I think that this covers most of the options correctly: when the target account is not inactive (=no usurp), when the usurping account is not very active here (=no usurp), and when en.wiki stands to gain a more useful contributor than we could potentially lose (=usurp). Just my £0.02. Happy‑melon 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

If any bureaucrats happen to notice this message, Slp1's RFA is about 4 hours overdue and there's a pretty sizeable backlog at WP:CHU. Useight (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RBAG

DHMO's RBAG is ready for closing --Chris 09:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I closed it and added Dihydrogen Monoxide to WP:BAG because I went and looked at it and it was a clear consensus. In the past we had held that bureaucrats did not need to get involved in RBAGs unless they were close. Are we still thinking that way? - Taxman ^Talk 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're shifting in the direction of having bureaucrats close more, or possibly all, new RfBAGs - it seems a fairly simple way to ameliorate some of the concerns that are constantly floating around about BAG. Like everything else BAG-related, there isn't really anything inequivocal either way :D Happy‑melon 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care either way, but if it makes people happy, then I'm for letting crats close it. Aaron Schulz 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Taxman. I concur with the above that having 'crats close BAG nominations (wherever we host them) is probably the best idea, if they are willing to do it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine is also about ready to be closed --Chris 10:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would argue that the habit of closing RfBAGs with that level of interest is a significant cause of many of BAG's problems. Happy‑melon 14:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Its been over ten days and there are 8 !votes, double the average for most brfas. The only reason why the other ones got more input was because there was the big hype with rbag on rfa. --Chris 21:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's double the average for the old RfBAGs is indicative of a problem with those nominations, not a lack of one with yours :D. To be perfectly honest, I'd personally consider an RfBAG to be borderline consensus with eight unanimous supports; your RfBAG is currently running at ~(5|3|0), which is 63% support. I'll be completely frank: if a bureaucrat closes your RfBAG now, it will fail - I would call into serious question the judgement of any bureaucrat who acted otherwise, because as a hard number that's a ridiculous level of involvement in a candidacy for a position which entitles you to give instructions to bureaucrats. You have several opposers who argue that you haven't publicised this nomination widely enough: remembering that there is no deadline, what have you got to lose from publishing it more widely and waiting another week? You'll get more non-protest involvement, and you might even persuade some of those who have opposed your nomination to change their minds. Happy‑melon 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. RfBAG's at RFA did indeed attract wide community involvement and give 'crats more meat to work with, based on their ability to weigh contrasting arguments. And one of the widespread criticisms of BAG was the lack of community involvement. I won't beat that horse, I'm just sayin'... Franamax (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally fail to see what publicising it will do, there has been lots of discussions with many users below my post(hey, even Majorly and East commented in the post - but still didn't !vote), so I don't think publicising is the problem. However if you think it will help, I will spam all the notice boards --Chris 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Chris 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris, please do not spam the noticeboards, this is considered canvassing. I have reverted your self-proclaimed spam. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we have three users who think I should spam and one who thinks I shouldn't. Well that is just GREAT --Chris 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS, could you imagine if someone did this with their RFA? I have nothing wrong with an uninvolved editor posting on some noticeboards requesting more community input as a whole, but having one editor "spam" noticeboards about their own nomination is way too blatant canvassing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, everyone looks at WP:RFA - very few people look at WT:BAG. --Chris 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Posting notices regarding BAG noms on WP:AN is standard practice. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] - auburnpilot talk 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I will reiterate what I said on Chris' talk page, if I am in error, then I apologize. As I can see it seems posting to AN is common practice. I do want to point out that Chris posted to AN, but also posted to the Village pump and the bot owner's noticeboard, which is what led me to believe that this was canvassing. There is a difference between notifying a relevant noticeboard, and as Chris stated "spam all the noticeboard." But personally, I no longer really care. So whatever you decide, go for it. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll note I made public my RBAG run at WP:AN, WP:BN, WP:VP/PR, WP:BON,WT:BOT, WT:RFA as well as using {{BAG-notice}} on my userpage. I did this to make sure no one could claim I tried a stealth run to avoid opposition. And since then I've encouraged WP:BOT be amended to list what sort of public notice is required for RBAGs. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have chosen WP:VP/T or WP:VP/PR rather than WP:VP/M, but I agree with Chris' choice of noticeboards, and with MBisanz' point that, in the absence of any consensus to actually move RfBAGs, publicising them widely is the best (indeed only) way to get enough involvement. WT:RFA is one on MBisanz' list that I'd say was a very good idea to notify. Happy‑melon 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Change my username

Hi to everyone. I am User:MARKELLOS of greek wikipedia. I would like to change my username to english wikipedia from User:MARKELLOS GR to User:MARKELLOS. Although there is already a user called User:Markello, he is a suspected sockpuppet and hasn't contributed since more than a year ago. I would be grateful if you could fix this. Thank you --MARKELLOS^{Leave me a message} 13:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You will probably want to file a request at Changing Username. It will get more attention there, and that is ultimately the correct place for such requests. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 13:59, May 25, 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--MARKELLOS^{Leave me a message} 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Temporary bureaucrats

Given that SUL is coming for all users on Tuesday, we're in for a treat with the huge backlogs that we'll no doubt have at WP:CHU. There will be no forced renames, and all renames will have to be done manually at the minute. Now, we need to consider our options before we get hit hard. I'd like to propose a number of users are given temporary bureaucrat status to aide in the CHU backlogs, with a clear understanding that they are only permitted to do renames. We wouldn't need loads, I'd say around 5-10 would be sufficient with a status as a bureaucrat for one month, until the backlogs go down. Renames are not hard to do, and there are many capable admins who understand the process and the username policy who easily handle this task for a month. I hope this is something we can consider. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think this a very good proposal; it seems to work fine at meta. The major problem with RfB is that yes - everyone can get SUL, tomorrow, and RfB run seven days. The purpose of the RfB would be moot. In the event that this proposal gets consensus to work, I volunteer my services for this. Maxim_(talk) 22:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It works fine at meta, but this isn't meta. This is English Wikipedia - really, imagine the potential abuse someone could make!! It couldn't be reversed, and they MUST go through RFB I'm afraid. It's a position that requires GLOBAL and ABSOLUTE trust. In all seriousness, there's no way this will be implemented without the cry of people who love opposing everyone coming here and ruining everything. There's no way we'll be able to agree on who can do this either. Al Tally ^talk 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just renames. And if an admin doesn't use the tools for renaming only, we can always ask a steward to take care of both of the bits. Maxim_(talk) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why both? If it's just bureaucrat that's being abused, that's all that needs removing :) Al Tally ^talk 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could get a new temporary usergroup that would allow admins in that usergroup to rename accounts. I've just asked on IRC, and it wouldn't be hard to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth has IRC to do with this? Are there no limits to what you and IRC can come up with Ryan, in your ever increasing thirst for power, Ryan Giano (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, Giano, you're reading it completely wrong. He means he asked someone who knows about these things (probably a developer), on the medium that happened to be IRC. It could have been email, MSN, in person, letter, phone. Whatever the way was, please AGF. Al Tally ^talk 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Stewards are able to create new user groups where they can assign single permissions. They could create a user group which just can rename user names. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well he spends half his life on IRC chatting away, always popping up here, there and everywhere, being important - too hard to AGF with him. Giano (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, why can't you accept the fact people use a chatroom? It actually does have some use. I raised that idea in IRC and hadn't yet suggested yet here. And seriously, an ability to rename a user is barely power... Why do we need to draw conclusion of bad faith so often? It's quite sad. Maxim_(talk) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be the best idea; and probably the one with the best chance of success. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this is a better solution IMHO. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though we should take steps to ensure that temporary is indeed temporary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd have to set firm dates prior to implementation. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Though we would have to define how temporary temporary is. 6 months will probably be too long, but since this will require cooperation between stewards and other wikis as well (many of the users needing renames will probably have their primary accounts on other projects), a week or 2 may be too short. 1-2 months maybe? Mr.Z-man 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A month would probably be a good starting point. Can always be extended if necessary and removed when done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, 1 month would be good. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually support it being a permanent usergroup and seperated from the bureaucrat right altogether, but that's a topic for a different time. A temporary "renamer" usergroup sounds like a good solution here: which admins did you think would be best suited for this, Ryan? Acalamari 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think admins who have experience with WP:CHU and/or WP:U would be a good choice, simply because they understand the processes involved. I'd offer, but there's other admins like yourself, Rudget, Mangojuice who would do the job well. Any other thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I do some clerking at CHU: I'd be happy to help here if this suggestion was implemented. Acalamari 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've undergone two renames (the last one was a year ago, and a year ago before that). I know the policy, I'd be willing to help out. 've considered running for RfB several times simply to do renames, but a single minded 'crat is not ever needed. So yeah, I'll help. Keegan^talk 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Temporary tools to deal with the (likely) backlog sounds fine with me, as does the 1 month (or until backlog is cleared) duration. And though in the past I've been more of a reader than active at CHU, I'd also be happy to help. - jc37 22:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Before we go crazy and add new usergroups and such after about 40 minutes of discussion, I think we really need to clarify en.wp's stance on usurpations where the requested account has edits. The discussion above has stalled. I think it would also be a good idea to ask the current renaming bureaucrats if they think they can handle it. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

They seemed to be backlogged last time; also, I think we're remaining status quo for the moment, so even if a user asked a rename outside of our policy, a regular crat would still say no, I think. Maxim_(talk) 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(5xec)For the love of god why would splitting yet another permission into a separate usergroup be a good idea :D I'd prefer to see it bundled with 'sysop': I'd never use it, but I can't see the downside - it's limited to users with <200,000 edits in the same way 'delete' is limited to <5,000 revisions, so it's not like people could crash the server with it; and you could do more psychological damage by indef-blocking someone than by forcibly renaming them. Special:Renameuser is certainly not abuse-free, but neither are the rest of the admin tools. But that's by-the-by: Given the sensitive nature of the SUL process (see the fiasco above) we need, at the present time, to restrict Special:RenameUser to those who are familiar with the relevant policies and issues. I'd support the temporary bulking-out of our 'crat population, either with temporary bureaucrats (who have merely promised not to use other features like Special:Userrights or Special:Makebot) or with a new usergroup (who are technically prevented from using said features). Given the level of scrutiny such appointees would receive, there is really very little difference: any temporary 'crat who touched Special:Makesysop would expect to be in very deep water. Happy‑melon 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would also be a good idea for the current bureaucrats to select the users. They are probably the best judges on who knows that they're doing. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No they aren't. They evaluate what community wants, not what they want. Al Tally ^talk 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I am unconvinced that this is the best way to proceed (see my comment below), if a consensus forms that temporary bureaucrats are needed to handle renames, I would propose initial appointments be offered to those who have had RfBs in the last year that were closed as no consensus but enjoyed considerable community support. By my reckoning, that would be: Avraham, Riana, Wizardman, EVula, Ral315, and Husond. WjBscribe 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to wait and see how bad the backlog gets, at least for a bit (with usurpations and rollback, things calmed down quite a bit after the first rushes). Any of the proposed additions seem to require steward support, either to help out directly or to remove access bits once temp slots are expired; to that end, their opinion of these suggestions seems important. If we are looking to temporarily flag a few people, I have no objection to the list WJB mentioned directly above (assuming they're interested). – Luna Santin (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The 200000 edit thing was removed... And brion would have a nervous meltdown if that happened, as the reason renaming is restricted is because of all the strain it may cause to the server. :-) Maxim_(talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been delayed for a couple of hours due to the problems it may cause to the server as stated above, but it will definitely happen, i.e the SUL going Global and temp new usergroup is a good idea, though it will be better if all the "inactive" crats wake up and try to help out if possible....--Cometstyles 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that renames (even for SUL compliance) are so time critical that we require special temporary bureaucrats. In many cases we will be talking renames for people who don't intend to be very active on this project if at all. There is no need to complete all SUL rename requests in real time - the only consequence of a backlog is that some people will need to be patient. That said, if the community feels that more bureaucrats are needed to process these requests, it may be a good time to create new bureaucrats. But I'm not convinced a special new process (or user class) is needed - I would suggest that our usual process, ie. RfB, is tried first before it is found wanting. On the current rules, usurpation requests (the bulk of SUL compliance rename requests so far) need to way 7 days anyway. WjBscribe 23:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Will's list of names above and basically its better to have more crats elected but it seems its hard for crats to get elected in enwiki, even those who have high amount of supports and since the SUL Global will be implemented soon, I don't think we can wait for 7 days to elect a new crat, since I doubt any will be successful, so it will be easier in the timeframe to appoint temp-crats (new temp user group which the stewards can create easily) to help out with the usurpations needed till enwiki can fix it RfB policies which might allow good candidates of actually having a chance of succeeding at RfB's, one crat elected in 3 months with over 15 nominations is just ridiculous...--Cometstyles 00:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems wise to wait and see what happens. If rename requests overwhelm the current pool of bureaucrats then additional measures may be needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something else too, which don't normally affect en.wp because we have active Bcrats already. Since the Foundation (read Brion) activated Global groups, Stewards already have global Bureaucrat access (as long as they have activated their SUL account -- which they have). But Stewards don't act on en.wp because there remains the policy of deferring to local access wherever it exists. But if there was some huge emergency and the local crats get swamped with renames, we can ask for help from the Stewards and in no time we could have at least some 15 Stewards helping out with renames. Because ours is by far the largest and most visible project in the entire Foundation, Stewards are generally familiar with our policies. Any fine tunning in terms of explaining to them how to proceed here could be done by myself and Dan, who are local crats and also Stewards. It's not that hard, it would take a couple of e-mails to the Steward mailing list,the Steward-l. But only if there was a huge emergency, of course. Should that be the case, this could be the fastest, safest way of dealing with the situation. Redux (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this plan the most. Keegan^talk 02:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As do I. Our recent experience with a steward's giving bureaucrat access in order that he might perform a name change wasn't, of course, all that happy, but none of the problems that presented themselves then would seem to present themselves here (this is, IMHO, obvious, but I make the observation only lest those who reviewed the Darkoneko discussion [the threads related to which became quite long rather quickly] only cursorily might not mistakenly associate that situation with this). Joe 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. Stewards fit the bill in terms of users who have gained and not abused the trust, and I think we should turn to them if a backlog does indeed build up. Enigma ^message 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be around to help out. I'll send round some e-mails to present bureaucrats and we'll see what we can do. No need to panic preemptively. — Dan | talk 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Dan and Redux; a good idea, but I don't think we need it yet (happy to be proven wrong). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Redux. Succint and to the point, I'd prefer that to the solution proposed above. Rudget (Help?) 10:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

hmm, Stewards actually have to look after 750 other wikis too and cannot be bothered with enwiki since usurpation request will come from all projects, there are two active crats who are stewards,Redux and Dan Smith, who can look after all the usurpation requests on enwiki and if they can't then there is always Plan B which is to create a new usergroup (which is possible for stewards now thanks to Global user rights) and temporarily add some of the trusted admins to it to help out with the ursurpation, probably those endorsed by WjBscribe..i.e if Plan A fails, which might due to high number of request that will come flowing :) ...--Cometstyles 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Any word on when, exactly, on "Tuesday" we open the floodgates? I read of some delays a few screens above. Happy‑melon 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as "Global account status:" appears on my Special:Preferences user profile section :P ..--Cometstyles 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect the hard work of dedication of the editors who want to help out, but I do not support creating temporary bureaucrats. An agreed upon process is in place that deals with the promotion of editors to bureaucratship. This circumvents that. This seems wholely unfair.

My suggestion is to recruit existing bureaucrats who are inactive. Explain to them what needs to be done, and tell them of the need for it to be done. I am sure a number of them will rise to the occassion.

Lastly, Ryan, what does it mean when you say "will have to be done manually at the minute"? Kingturtle (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Was this further rolling out of SUL announced anywhere else? I put my SUL account creation on hold until August because I wanted to get a rename on another project put through first (going ahead with the SUL creation would have caused problems later). Should I go ahead with the SUL thingy now anyway? Previously, only admins could initiate a SUL, but if anyone can do this, vandals can create accounts and make a few edits to cybersquat names - I presume precautions have been taken to avoid this and that people creating new accounts will be given the option of SUL or told that the name is only free on selected projects? Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta bureaucrats and stewards can delete global accounts if necessary, so my advice to you would be: create your global account now, then in August when you can get the other account on the other wiki moved out the way, ask someone to delete your global account so that your username there can be moved into position and you can recreate your global account including it. I suspect that this sort of thing is going to happen a lot - the stewards might well be busy enough moving things around on wikis without bureaucrats and playing with people's global accounts that they won't have much time dealing with specific problems on en.wiki. Happy‑melon 14:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving to your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta bureaucrats can't delete Global accounts, not yet though :) ..--Cometstyles 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can :D Al Tally ^talk 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

woohoo just woke up, didn't know what TheVIBBERMister had planned...yay off to delete Jimbo's account :DD ..--Cometstyles 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering running

I'm considering running via RfB, but I am simply worried about having it immediately shot down. :) Folks have been offering to use {{RfB-nom}}, but I'd rather source thoughts here first. Comments? Anthøny 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Accept one of their offers, and then accept the nomination that follows. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First, don't worry about it. It doesn't mean a lot, though it does to some people for some reason. Go for it! Al Tally ^talk 23:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD ;) Wizardman 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cratship is no big deal" HA !..actually, if you think you have what it takes, then you should take the plunge, <POV>I believe you will make excellent crat though </POV>. we need more crats, don't know how many times I have said that so I will rephrase it, "We need more active crats"..I'd say go for it, Be a man :p ...--Cometstyles 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

However, let me warn you that the experience can be somewhat draining. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. No question we need more 'crats. Our main problem is that deserving candidates from the administrator ranks are not stepping up and being WP:BOLD. Enigma ^message 05:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Say what? ;) -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! As long as you will work at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U you have my support --Chris 08:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking to me, even if I do attempt to run again, it won't be for a while :) -- Avi (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was replying to AGK, although I'd love to see you become a 'crat too. Too bad it won't be for a while. Enigma ^message 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's never any harm in seeing what the non-BN community thinks...(ie. by trying.) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like EVula got there first.. :) Rudget (Help?) 10:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. ;) Qst (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I was holding off for a bit while Wikipedia Takes Nashville wrapped up; I'd had my eye on #3 before you posted this thread. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Modification of usurpation practice for SUL requests

Without delving into the problem of accounts that have made substantial contributions at this point, I propose two modifications to our approach to usurpation requests:

Where a usurpation request is made with a view to SUL compliance and the target account has made no significant edits to articles:

1) The usual one week waiting period is waived. Requests will be performed immediately.

2) Requests will be performed even where the target user has objected to being renamed.

The usurped user will be informed on their talkpage (and by email if this is enabled) that they have been renamed for technical reasons and that they can either (a) be renamed to a new name of their choice or (b) create a new account.

Thoughts on these changes? Where users haven't contributed content, the goals of unified login would seem to me to trump the interests of an inactive user. Although the idea of an accounts without article edits refusing to be renamed seems an unlikely one, it came up several times during the first wave of SUL implementation requests.WjBscribe 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This all seems reasonable. — Dan | talk 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(non-crats opinion)"2) Requests will be performed even where the target user has objected to being renamed." well if the target user has hardly made any edits or is inactive for more than 24 months, I would agree, but if they have racked in over 500 edits with the last 15 months, the it has to be judged very carefully by the crats on duty ;)..apart from that, it all seems like an excellent idea :) ..--Cometstyles 01:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Doubt we'll see too many objections from accounts that have zero substantial edits, ever; seems okay to handle those case-by-case as/if they come up. Dropping or reducing the waiting period in the context of SUL sounds fine to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am talking only about cases where no significant edits were made at the moment. WjBscribe 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

which makes up about 70% of the 7 million editors, so I totally agree with your idea :) ...--Cometstyles 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. But only for Where a usurpation request is made with a view to SUL compliance and the target account has made no significant edits to articles. We still need some sort of waiting period for other cases. If a week is too long right now, it should be at least 48 hours. Kingturtle (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• The kicker there is no significant edits to articles. What happens to accounts which have been long dormant, but have had significant edits to articles? Will we have the 1 week waiting period remain in force, or 48 hours, or something else? Also, related to SUL usurpations: Multi-lingual users should be asked to help out here, as we'll have an influx of users who will simply be unintelligible in English. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment those with significant edits cannot be usurped - the waiting period is thus academic for these. I am not proposing a change to that at the moment, that will need further discussion. However a new wave of requests is about to hit us and I feel the changes I propose here (which only affect accounts without significant edits) will help process these more efficiently. WjBscribe 07:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it make any sense to have a watchlist notice directly people to CHU and asking people who can translate to help? MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably, although I'd wait for more opinions. I mean, I can handle Spanish fine, but I'm not sure how polyglotic the clerk base is... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing how many accounts are out there that were created and have no edits. User:Artichoke anyone? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I thought I'd give my 2p seeing as I am a regular CHU(/U) clerk. This seems fine, and would certainly smooth out the SUL process. Oh, and I can handle any requests in French, just FYI. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:03, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

I believe some 66% of all enwiki accounts have never edited. SQL^{Query me!} 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Matter of fact, there are presently 4,712,138 users with 0 edits, deleted or otherwise. SQL^{Query me!} 02:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get these requests on my talk page. I think maybe we need to make the instructions clearer for those users requesting SUL renames. Andre (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a template, written in basic English would be in order? MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because Stewards usually give the "ask the friendly local bureaucrat" speech... I guess that we'll just have to watch the talk pages of all of you. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think something more along the lines of the error message that the servers throw occasionally (or not-so-occasionally recently :(): defaults to english, but with translations in as many languages as we can get our hands on. What is it going to say (in English)? How about:

“ Global account policy:

If a user account exists on en.wiki with the same username as your global account, you can ask for it to be renamed so that you can claim the username yourself; provided that the target account has no edits to the article namespace. Please check the edit history of the target account, and post a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#SUL if the target account meets this requirement. If you already have an account on en.wiki, you will need to ask a steward to delete your global account so that an en.wiki bureaucrat can move your local account into position under your global username.

”

Too complicated? There's a lot of information that has to be conveyed, especially given the unhealthy combination of potentially poor understanding of the system, and potentially poor english. Happy‑melon 14:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Meta Crats can also delete Global accounts, so we are willing to help out if needed :) ...--Cometstyles 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a bit complicated. (1) It assumes they need to delete the global account when they may not have unified. (2) No edits to articles isn't strictly true - we'd let them have it if there were edits but they were all vandalism, all reverts, or all very minor e.g. punctuation fixes. WjBscribe 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK seeing as there is no objection here, I will proceed with "fast tracking" SUL-based usurpation requests. WjBscribe 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little late on the scene, but this seems to be necessary. No objections from my end, Will. Anthøny 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)