Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

Need some opinions on a rename

Resolved
 – User renamed further on their request. –xenotalk 16:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Recently I renamed User:Niemti to User:TRIGGERWARNING on WP:CHU/S. I had some reservations because I was confused by the user's rationale; it seemed to me that there was something pointy about it. I left a query on their talk page and the user seemed to brush it off, so I just went with it. A bit later, User:DD2K shot me an email about some incidents that the user had with regards to the Anita Sarkeesian article, as well as links about the phrase "trigger warning." These incidents happened almost two years ago, from what I understand (I could be misunderstanding, I wasn't given any diffs, just a Wikipediocracy article about the incident). I don't think I would have approved the rename had I known what I know now, but I would like some outside opinions about this matter and what should be done. bibliomaniac15 04:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I will list a few things before I go to bed for the night. The post at Wikipediocracy outlines some of the problems Niemti had with Anita Sarkeesian. But that was just to sum things up without providing a bunch of links. Niemti was topic banned from "all edits to articles or discussions relating to Anita Sarkeesian, broadly construed" January 29, 2013 because of his behavior towards the BLP article of Anita Sarkeesian. He has also had motions for a site ban from a RFC/U and an ANI thread. I've not participated in any of those, but remember the incidents. So the request started making more sense when piecing this together. It's an attempt to troll "feminists" and/or Anita Sarkeesian. Who use the term frequently. 1, 2, 3. + dozens and dozens more. So the rename is just an attempt at 1-trolling and 2-imply personal attacks, which are against Username policies. And probably a sneak around in violating the topic ban. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Going purely from memory, he was unbanned with the new account after a long break, and immediately got into some issues that forced the topic ban. Pointy stuff. The block log doesn't have the links but I remember enough to believe Dave Dial is 100% on target here. Might even be worthy of a discussion on WP:AN for possible sanctions, as his length of rope is short enough as it is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Borderline case; I'd say take it to WP:RFC/N if concerns linger. –xenotalk 16:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Before this came to my attention, I don't even think I've ever heard of a "Trigger Warning". So most people won't even get the insult trying to be made by Niemti. But is that a reason to allow the name change? Why not ask the admin who closed the Anita Sarkeesian topic ban? Or one of the dozen or so admins that have blocked this user 17 times the past 8 years(Hanzohatorri block log, Niemti block log, the latest for 42 days March 22, 2014. Honestly, the name change should not have happened, and I know bibliomaniac wouldn't have made it had the information now known, been known then. So what's next? Nothing? A user named change picked specifically to disrupt the project and offend other users, is against policy. Not even mentioning the topic ban and blocks. For the record, I don't think it's borderline, it's pretty clear cut. I think it would be borderline if not for the history, topic ban, blocks and constant disruption. In any case, here we are. Dave Dial (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, RFC/N would be the appropriate venue if the user is not willing to voluntary adopt a different name. –xenotalk 17:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Part of me wondered if an indef block until he changed names was appropriate, under the terms of his topic ban. No different than we do people that adopt "CompanyNameGroup" names. To me that is appropriate, although that would be setting a precedent that is sure to cause some drama, which is the only reason I haven't done it already. I, too, believe this is well beyond "borderline" and into obvious intent. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    I've left a note on his talk page. If he will just go and request a name change, we can block the old name and call it done. If he doesn't, I will take it to WP:AN to get sanctions. This is just too obvious a violation of his topic ban, and if he were wise, he would just bow out and pick a name that will not be questioned. As I told him, even if there wasn't a topic ban, knowing he picked the name as a POINTy/disruptive name is enough reason to disallow its use. And I fully understand why it wasn't obvious to Bib at first, but now that we know.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the username is a violation of the topic ban; a "trigger warning" is a rather common expression. I also think the rename was really a fucking bad idea, as I outlined on Niemti's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You are assuming a lot more faith than I am here. I think he is playing a little game here, and within a day I will just let the community decide. His poorly executed attempt at being coy isn't convincing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Salvidrim, I saw your post on Niemti's Talk page, so you have to know what Niemti is attempting to do here. And if it's not a violation of the topic ban, why even change the name to that? The topic ban states:

      Niemti is topic-banned from all edits to articles or discussions relating to Anita Sarkeesian, broadly construed.

      And you have to know that one of the main hooplas concerning Anita Sarkeesian was concerning "trigger warnings". If you do a Google search of "Anita Sarkeesian" and Trigger warning, you have over 46,000 results. Are we that naive? It's just pure coincidence that Niemti chose that new name? That is highly, highly doubtful. Dave Dial (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm willing to consider the fact the rename request, while obviously not innocuous, wasn't specifically linked to the subject of the topic ban, especially since it's been a long while. Niemti's obviously reacting to something and/or trying to provoke a reaction (success!), which is why I think the 'crat who approved the namechange did a poor job of actually looking up what the new name was (even without taking into consideration Niemti's history I would consider TRIGGERWARNING to be an exceptionally bad idea). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why this username isn't blocked already, it's an obvious violation of their topic ban and I'd even go so far as to say it's a BLP violation in that it is being used to attack the subject of an article (directly or indirectly, I don't think it matters). Also, the thought of taking this to a noticeboard if they don't voluntarily agree to the rename, merely further advertises the username; why would we want to spread it around like that? I say block now. For full disclosure, I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with this editor when they were User:HanzoHattori, I am surprised to find the indefinite block on that account overturned/ and not even part of the block history on the current account. Dreadstar ☥ 21:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that irrevocably linking "trigger warnings" to Anita Sarkeesian is utterly ridiculous. I have seen and used that expression for a while now and never even remotely in relation to the subject of this specific topic ban. Which is why I am willing to entertaint he idea that the username and the topic ban are potentially unrelated bad ideas. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The question is of intent. You would have to believe that he used a term that he is surely familiar with, knowing it would be associated with Anita, but chose it for completely unrelated reasons. If it were a random editor without sanction, it would be one thing, but if you had been following him since his controversial unblocking [1] by User:Ched (a guy I really like, but disagree with that decision), and even all the socking before that as User:HanzoHattori (they have different block logs, btw [2]), you might not be as quick to throw out undeserved good faith. This isn't a one off problem with this editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Believe me, I've hard more than my fair share of Niemti over the years. I just don't see him suddenly going back on a years old topic ban out of the blue. That he doesn't have good intentions is one thing, but I'd bet he used "trigger warning" for what it means, not for its potential reference to Ms. Sarkeesian. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Then you would have to believe one of two things: 1. Either he was never aware of that association of that name and Anita, or 2. He knew it but chose to use the name anyway. Considering his familiarity, enough so that he was topic banned, I find option 1. not credible, and I'm willing to bet most would agree with me, considering his entire history, which is full of confrontation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Do we really have to find a nexus between the user name and Anita Sarkeesian to conclude that the name request was a really bad idea? And not just a nexus, but a belief that many editors will get the connection if they haven't followed the history (which most haven't).However, if they miss the connection, surely they will understand the meaning, and wonder if "I_am_a_misogynist or Mygoalisvandalism or askmewhyusuck are now acceptable user names. Or maybe we should just let the name rename, and see what it reaps?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys. Whatever has Anita f. Sarkeesian do with anything? "TRIGGER WARNING" is a widespred internet sillyness invented by sheltered Americans ("It’s hard not to think that the desire for trigger warnings isn’t simply evidence of a younger generation’s need to “toughen up,” but yet another manifestation of the very American desire to limit one’s experience to “pleasant” things rather than fully understanding the world around us." - Ruth Fowler). --Niemti (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Gah. I forgot to login back in after uploading a new version of a pic at Wikipedia Commons. Also: If you do a Google search of "Anita Sarkeesian" and Trigger warning, you have over 46,000 results. is a lie - it's 17,600 in reality. And if you do a Google search of "-Sarkeesian" and Trigger warning, you have over 60 MILLION results. Including http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive for example. What a stupid discussion. I can take another name if this one's perceived as too edgy, sure, but god damn, that "Anita Sarkeesian!!1" nonsense was just so random. In fact I'm using it even as my photo account on Facebook. -TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw: Mr. Brown, are you really "following" me? Please stop. You can "follow" me at my FB photo blog^, though. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Niemti has a topic ban where the original post included "for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip" (ANI archive). While "trigger warning" is a common phrase, it happens to be strongly associated with the subject of Niemti's topic ban. Under such circumstances, there should be no balancing of probabilities or discussion of AGF—Wikipedia is a collaborative community and if Niemti won't say "oh, I see what you mean...please rename my account to avoid this misunderstanding", an indefinite block should follow. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why did you write "Anita f. Sarkeesian"? Her middle initial does not appear to be "f". I understand that it's impossible to respond here without technically violating your topic ban, but does the "f" stand for what I think it does? If so, I expect you'll find yourself reblocked shortly. Please explain. –xenotalk 11:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Sarkeesian Sarkeesian Sarkeesian why do want me SO BAD to entrap me with some Sarkeesian bullshit? "oh, I see what you mean...please rename my account to avoid this misunderstanding" to IDONTCARE or hgcsdfsdcsdfuhcvefvhjchjhbj for what all I care, which I don't - OK? Then please find yourselves some other people to "follow" and bother with most stupid crap. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Until this showed up here, I had never heard of you or Sarkeesian. So the persecution routine is unwarranted. You seem to be digging for a block, maybe you should put the shovel down. –xenotalk 13:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe you guys should stop bothering me with inane presume-bad-faith theories, continuing so even after I showed you my FB account (my PSN account is also similar, it's "TR1GG3R_WARNING"). So! After everything was explained, if you want so for whatever other reasons, you can change my name to "IDONTCARE" for all I actually (don't) care. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to rename you (under duress) from one seemingly pointy username to another. –xenotalk 13:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Whatever was "seemingly pointy" in my use of it everywhere else? I'd say it's more edgy than pointy. And "DontBotherMe" will also work. Or "DontTazeMeBro" for that matter. I really don't care. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I don't buy the obtuse act. No one is trying to trap you, you are here because of intentional acts on your part. As for a block, that is still on the table. I think xeno's question is a reasonable one, btw. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
        • What "intentional acts"? And actually yeah, I like IDONTCARE. I think it will one "common phrase" that isn't also somehow "strongly associated" with Her Who Should Not Be Named. If not, then maybe WHATEVER will do. Oh, and "I'm sorry, but I don't buy the obtuse act" of yours. But you can keep ignoring reality (2013-12-05) in favour of the the most stupid presume-bad-faith-in-spite-of-logic-and-also-actual-evidence theories, I don't care. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Your less than empathetic response to the concern isn't reassuring, particularly since you've been asked to take the path of least drama but insist on making attacks instead. As for your offwiki activities, it is meaningless. I have no idea why you chose those names for those pages, or if that is even you as I have no way of verifying. What you do on Facebook isn't the issue here. That you refuse to even acknowledge WHY others here are concerned is at issue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
            • way of verifying But actually your persistent assume-bad-faith is meaningless to me, and really I don't care about this absurdity. Don't "follow" me. That's all, bye. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
          • As I have said before, I am inclined to believe this is not related to Anita Sarkeesian. I am perfectly aware of Niemti's history and hadn't even thought of Anita before you guys brought her up. Niemti is visibly doing a pretty poor job of defending himself, once again, but I suggest we accept his proposal to rename the account once more to something a little less eyebrow-raising and then move on, as we usually do. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Defending them self? Niemti is basically stating "I troll stupid American women everywhere, see? If you don't like it, STOP FOLLOWING ME!". That's hardly defending them self. But you can go ahead and make the user name change. That's all my email to Bibliomaniac15 stated. That he shouldn't have made the username change, and it should be reversed. But... I guarantee the editor winds up back at ANI sooner or later. That seems blatantly obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
            • He has found himself at AN/I often over the years, and the community never reached consensus to block, re-ban or anything beyond the aforementioned topic ban. That's part of Wikipedia ambivalent love/hate towards rude but productive editors and I don't foresee that changing in the near future. If it were up to me, I'd much rather we keep Niemti's editing work with the difficult attitude that comes with it than get rid of it all; it's historically why has happened in similar cases anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate description at all. This editor was community banned in 2008, and only unblocked in late July 2012. A controversial unblock where it looks like there was really no consensus to unblock. Lifting a community ban requires(or should) a strong consensus. The editor has been blocked multiple times since, the most recently for 42 days in March, 2014. Also, what's this? It's Niemti removing all mention of Anita Sarkeesian and Kickstarter from the Mai Shiranui article. How many more such edits that violate their Topic Ban have they been making? It's almost impossible to tell, as the editor almost NEVER leaves an edit summary. This is beyond ridiculous. Dave Dial (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

                • I removed something that I've originally inserted back in 2012 and then only updated in 2014 (with a note the character was NOT even mentioned in the actual series - a small part of a maaajor edit, including 4.5 KB of new content), because I see how badly some people want to get me for any bullshit (and hey, I was right!) so I decided "f-this, there's not even a need for this shit anyway" as I was editing it anyway, continously (in the meantime almost everything in the article got totally rewritten). So, please, just buzz off. STOP-FOLLOWING-ME - how hard is this to understand? Seemingly, really hard. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
                  • WP:BN isn't the place to discuss the topic ban, but the fact that you aren't concerned that you did violate the topic ban, and instead rationalize it, doesn't convince that you have dropped the subject from your mind, or even actions, including the choice of names. I've tried to get you to consider a new name, others have as well, and we're all trying to solve this with the least amount of drama, without an ANI case asking for sanctions, but you don't seem to understand or care. If we were trying to "punish" you, a case requesting an indef would have already been filed. Or one of us could have just blocked you for the topic ban violation. Unquestionably, that would be a valid action that would stand up to scrutiny at WP:AN. We're trying to give you the easiest way out, but you have to be smart enough to take it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
                    • A way out of what? I didn't do anything, you came to with absurd accusations about "intentional acts" that weren't. But I told you many you can change this new name and I just don't even care about it. Am I not clear about it or what? Bro, look - I hope SNAAAAKE!! will not in any way trigger anyone. Peace. And love. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
                      • I see xeno has changed the name, it can be blocked without prejudice later. Believe it or not, blocking you is not what anyone wanted. Please, please avoid removing/adding material related to the topic ban in the future, even if you previously added, so we won't have to worry about further discussion on it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for resysop

Ckatz (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hello, I've just noticed this. Could i please request the rights be restored, or (if this is the wrong place) a point in the correct direction? Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Right place, but I moved this down to a new section to make sure it gets seen quickly. There is a 24 hour waiting period to allow researching the history, but (as a non-Crat) I'm guessing there won't be any problems. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks fine after the hold period. –xenotalk 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI, I am not aware of any issues. Welcome back. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thus ends the longest period of time between resysoppings *ever*. Graham87 13:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for BAG-N Closure

Would any uninvolved 'crat please review Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis for closure. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Commented there, so won't close - but I wonder if 'Overdue RfBAGs' should pop up on crat tasks (preferably only when they are overdue - given their rarity [Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters.?]). And let this be a call for additional experienced editors to apply, as BAG could use more members. –xenotalk 12:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm slightly consfused. Is this a request for me to close it, or add RfBAG to cratstats?—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A request to add it to the stats. (If technically possible.) –xenotalk 13:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear-I'm requesting that a 'crat review the nomination to determine if sufficient consensus is in place to close the nomination as either successful or unsuccessful. RfBAG nominations are very infrequent, so are not usually on the dashboard. This is the first one in the last year. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 13:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes; User:cyberpower678 thinking further, given the low rate, it is probably not worth it to implement.–xenotalk 14:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question: Does a crat really need to close it? The crat bit isn't needed when closing. I'm more than willing to close it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    The procedure is that Requests for BAG membership are closed by bureaucrats (by tradition, but also in large part because bureaucrats are also asked to act on BAG advice during the granting of the bot flag). –xenotalk 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    Ah.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Bot Flag on DRNClerkBot

Per the successful and uncontentious BRFA( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DRN clerk bot), I request that DRN clerk bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) be given the bot group flag. Hasteur (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Maxim(talk) 12:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for resysop

Resolved
 – Welcome back! –xenotalk 02:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back and raring to go! Please may I have the mop back? :-) TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but your first post didn't have a signature [3] so I'm pretty sure the Crats won't give the bit back. ;) Just so you know, there is a 24 hour waiting period to allow checking out the background. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, sorry about that, obviously rusty. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There are no issues that I have noticed or am aware of; I'd be happy to resysop you once the 24-hour waiting period has expired. In the meantime, welcome back! Acalamari 23:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I dug around and don't see any problems as well. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to pick a little bit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Global renaming

On 1 July 2014, it will be possible to rename a global account from meta. The current plan is as follows:

  • Stewards will handle global renaming of accounts with a standard unified login from meta.
  • Local bureaucrats will retain the renameuser right, and will handle renames for users without an SUL and usurpations.

This is essentially a transition period, in which stewards can globally rename users but local bureaucrats retain their local renameuser right. This will change with SUL finalization, when that right will be removed from the bureaucrat group. The WMF sees this as a community issue (despite it really being a technical one surrounding global accounts), and as such, this project is under no obligation to follow this plan. However, for the sake of the people requesting renames and to prevent the SUL system from becoming even more mangled, it would seem to make sense.

If the bureaucrats/community here are OK with this plan, then the best way to implement it would be to direct all requests for renaming to m:SRUC starting on 1 July. Like I said above, usurpations and renaming of accounts without an SUL would still need to be done here.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. What kind of username policy are the stewards planning on using, if any? –xenotalk 03:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
We currently don't have a global username policy (even though we routinely do renames on wikis without local 'crats). That said, perhaps this is a good opportunity to make one. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a global username policy will be needed. In particular, you will quickly hit the issue of how a steward deals with a request from a user with SUL, who wishes to be renamed to a new name globally for which there is no SUL but where the are unattached local accounts. Does global renaming require the new name to be available on all projects? If not, should local usurpations be sought first? Also, it is not clear to me how a project would "opt out" - if enwiki chose not participate, would that not make global renaming impossible? WJBscribe (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See the documentation. "The new name must be completely unused on all wikis." πr2 (t • c) 12:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Opting out would mean that rename requests for users with an SUL wouldn't be directed to meta, and we wouldn't handle requests from here. We would still globally rename accounts on request, so our names might show up in the logs for accounts with 0 edits here or homewikis elsewhere. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This worries me a little, although BEANS tells me not to say why. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear why if you don't mind. I've only informed two projects of this so far to see what concerns come up, so getting feedback is important to me. If you'd prefer to not post it publicly, you could email me instead. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll have what he's having... ^ –xenotalk 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Coming up... --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Dweller: Me three. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is the meta discussion of this proposed change? --Dweller (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

On m:SN. πr2 (t • c) 22:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. In the unlikely case that anyone's interested (!) I've posted a comment at that page --Dweller (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Question re globalization of names

Wanderer57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

This is a "process" question. Having learned that my username is apparently duplicated on another language version of Wikipedia (which I do not edit), should I be asking for bureaucratic help OR just waiting to see what happens down the road? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You might as well ask at it:WP:USURP for the name to be moved aside. –xenotalk 22:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be a nuisance but I think there is sort of a Catch22 situation. The procedure set out at it:WP:USURP includes leaving a message on the appropriate talk page. However, the password I use on the en.wikipedia is not valid on the it.wikipedia so I can't login to leave a message. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You would have had to place request as IP or created a new name. But instead I placed the request for you. Good luck. –xenotalk 02:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you xeno. Wanderer57 (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove bot flag from inactive interwiki bots?

I discovered that we have many inactive interwiki bots. In many cases they were operated by editors mainly active in other Wikipedias. All these bots stopped operating in the period 2011-2013. Moreover, many of these bot, of not all, are/were in toolserver. I wonder if we should remove the bot flag from them for security purposes. I guess we won't like the idea of a bot account to get hacked. We can re-add the bot flag in case the bots are re-purposed.

I refer to: User:A4bot, User:Alirezabot, User:AmphBot, User:Analphabot, User:ArthurBot, User:AswnBot, User:BendelacBOT, User:BOT-Superzerocool, User:BotKung. And I sure they are much more. I only checked those starting from letters A and B.

I am trying to figure out which bots are really active and they have real active tasks assigned. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We've done this before at various times and it probably makes sense to have another clear out of inactive bots. If someone posts a list of bots from which the flag should be removed and a member of the Bot Approvals Group signs off on the list, we can action it. WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, go for it. –xenotalk 17:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest a thread be created for this at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard, and that the operators all get pinged; after a reasonable notification we can deauthorize the bots and ping a 'crat for action. Best regards, (BAG) — xaosflux Talk 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I am creating the list right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@WJBscribe, Xeno, and Xaosflux: Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Bot_that_are_inactive_for_the_last_2-4_years_and_may_lose_bot_flag -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Inactive Administrators: July 2014

Resolved

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to both of them for their contributions to the project. Mike V • Talk 04:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks to both for their efforts. WormTT(talk) 07:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for tools back

Resolved
 – Request fulfilled.

It's been six months since I last requested the tools back. The community and I decided it was best for wait until my life stabilizes a bit before requesting again per User:Secret/recall. Well my life is stabilized, I got a full time job and I am going back to school in the fall. Until then, I got lots of free time to do basic administrative work as the project needs as many experienced hands as possible. I didn't resign under a cloud though there was an action on a block i did that was later objected as I got involved in an area i wasn't familiarly involved in and will avoid in the future. This will be the last time I ask for the tools again, and I won't ask for removal again if that is a concern with the community. I'll reply to all concerns. Thanks Secret account 19:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW (probably not much, coming from me) but I have long supported the responsible attitude of dropping the tools when not needed and picking them up again when they're likely to be used. Secret's extensive tenure and flexible attitude to holding the admin bits speaks volumes. Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on your full time job! I have only a couple of questions.
First, how will you combine your full time job with college studies while undertaking stressful Wikipedia duties at the same time? (Duties that were so stressful, on previous occasions, as to cause you significant difficulties.) Or, is it more a summer job, that will be reduced in scope when you re-enter college?
Second, you've made some statements off-wiki about how you will deal with certain individuals (for example, me). Do these statements form part of your plans for the administrative rights you're requesting, or do they form part of some former era that is no longer relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Link to those comments. Nick (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Secret may or may not be able to do so, or indeed he can state that he has never made any statements off-wiki about me. At that point I would wish to discuss with him the posts made under one of his usernames on Wikipediocracy where that username says (in a discussion with two community-banned users), "Demiurge1000 is a troll who should be banned indef", and, in a separate comment, "I think I'll take the lead here concerning D1000" and "he knows his days are numbered".
Perhaps these posts using one of his former usernames were in fact made by an imposter? In which case I presume Secret would be eager to clear his name.
An alternative would just be to answer the question in the form that I asked it. "Taking the lead" seems particularly ominous.
If you, Nick, are seriously concerned that such comments were never made, I am willing to forward my screenshot of them to any current oversighter, to allay your concerns. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The comments are public and easily Googled, though out of a surfeit of "caution", I will refrain from directly linking to them. One thing of note, though, is that the comments that Demiurge is referring to are nearly six months old. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Well quite, that's why I put forward the suggestion that Secret might publicly state they were part of a "former era" that is now past. (Though five-and-a-bit months is not much of an era by Wikipedia standards.) Instead Secret merely considers them "off topic". That's not hugely reassuring for me nor for anyone else for whom Secret might choose to "take the lead" in making sure their Wikipedia "days are numbered". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
What I say in a off-wiki website I no longer participate in has nothing to do with this request. D1000 we both have strong opinions against each other (your comments about me during the 28bytes fiasco was one of the reasons why I resigned), but lets keep our personal opinions separate from this request. I'm not here to provoke drama, but instead quietly use the tools on basic cleanup stuff. This is off-topic and up to the crats to decide. Secret account 01:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's hard to precisely describe the hat I'm trying to wear right now; I'm definitely not speaking for the committee, but more like as an individual arb, if that makes sense. I, personally, would be much more comfortable with this if Secret agreed never to block anyone except for obvious vandals, and agreed never to take part in arbitration enforcement. @Secret:, would you be willing to agree to that? Otherwise, I'd be tempted to try to lobby the crats to consider the previous resignation "under a cloud", or whatever the current term of art is. Other editors, and other arbs, may have stronger or weaker concerns than I do, and such an agreement may not be sufficient for them to be comfortable, or they may not think it's necessary. But it would satisfy me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's fine, I wasn't planning to participate in those areas anyways. Just deletion. Secret account 02:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If I may, please consider the concerns of the community in early 2013 at Secret's Feb. 2013 third Rfa where I expressed brief concerns in my early oppose, along with 34 others. Now nearly eighteen months later here we are again, and I submit that the larger community deserves a chance to revisit and reconsider the issues this request raises. I again wish Secret all the best, but feel that the ongoing pressures he is under invite another or multiple rounds of drama. Obviously deletion, his stated area of operation, is a crucial and sensitive area of the project, and I respectfully but strongly feel a thorough review is called for under the circumstances mentioned above. Please either reject the request or initiate another Rfa. Jusdafax 03:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I remember looking at this at the time, and was rather impressed with User:Guerillero's suggestion of a "middle ground". Since Secret has followed the first half - waiting until now - I was wondering if he consider following the second half, talking to his recall posse and get their agreement before a crat returns the tools. WormTT(talk) 11:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    Speaking up from the "recall posse" here (Secret asked me to take a look): While I'm not the most enthusiastic about him requesting his bits back pretty much immediately after the elapse of the minimum timeframe we agreed on (part of my concern has always been how Secret tends to be in a rush for things like this), I also don't see any particular reason to oppose re-granting the bits. I would caution him to be more cautious than he believes he needs to be in both his admin actions and his words in the future; intemperance in one or both is where any potential drama is going to come from, as we're seeing here.

    As a side note, I'm sort of concerned about the lobbying here for his resignation to be retroactively labeled "under a cloud", or usage conditions to be imposed, or for crats to impose a must-RFA criterion on Secret in particular. While I understand the impulse in drama-prone cases, and I would probably support a proposal to allow crats to make some type of judgment along those lines in general, they have previously stuck doggedly to "we must resysop unless a cloud was declared at the time", and I would be uncomfortable seeing them suddenly reverse that without a community consensus to allow them that option in all re-sysoppings. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Speaking as nothing more than an observer and not part of the posse, Fluffernutter manages to concisely express my concerns and thoughts here with 100% accuracy (particularly the small print..), so I will just say "me, too". Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Me three as part of the "recall posse" on all of Fluffernutter's comment. -- KTC (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Not part of the posse.) I see no reason above - certainly no sound case for "erratic behaviour" - to withhold the permission. Secret has agreed not to use the block button for anything but obvious vandalism; while unnecessary, this concession should allay Demiurge1000's concerns. My concern is that disclosures about a health issue are now being used to humiliate (inadvertently I'm sure, but) and oppress a user. If Secret were laying down and resuming adminship due to a heavy RL workload or another kind of illness, would we be seeing this patronising spectacle? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If only *all* admins would agree not to use the block button for anything but obvious vandalism. How many damaging blocks have been imposed without community input, on the judgment of just one individual. That said, it is to Secret's credit that they have enough self-awareness to know when they need to step away from the keyboard, and when it is time to come back. Would that we all could be granted such wisdom. —Neotarf (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go slightly out on a limb (but only slightly) and state that unless the previous desysop was under a cloud at the time then the 'crats have no mandate not to return the tools. Of course no editor has to do anything, so in effect the entire 'crat team could take no action, and thus push the issue to one side. However, as it currently stands, 'crats are politely requested to do no more than enact current consensus. If that's a broken process SOFIXIT - until then precedent and consensus says tools back. Making this process up on the fly seems a little dodgy - and frankly there are a number of the poorer quality bureaucrats who absolutely should not be allowed to start second guessing community norms. Pedro :  Chat  20:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not going to endorse the last sentence, but the rest of Pedro's comments capture my thoughts as to the limits of what 'crats can do here. WJBscribe (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not in his posse either, and I might be in the minority here, but the way he interacts with me on IRC is not the way I would expect a sysop to act. Nothing confrontational or drama-mongering; he just seems to take everything as a joke. I'm all for being jovial and not taking things too seriously, but this is taking it to the next level. It's almost childish at times. Whether he acts like this onwiki or not, I don't know. I've never personally interacted with him onwiki and I'm sure he's really great with the sysop tools if all of the wonderful editors above are supporting him regaining the tools. However, my point is that I advise him to take things more seriously if/when he gets the bit back, and I personally think he should start with minor tasks. TCN7JM 22:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • First, let me clarify that I am commenting in my personal capacity and not on behalf of ArbCom. That said, when Secret asked to be desysopped, a block of his was being discussed by ArbCom. This discussion was taking place in private, because it had stemmed from an appeal to BASC; the discussion, however, was dropped as soon as Secret relinquished the tools – in hindsight, I think we should just have ignored his decision and proceeded with our discussion, but the point is we didn't. Back then, before Secret gave up the tools, some of us said they were considering the possibility of acting wrt his adminship. Now, had this happened in public, I'm fairly certain this might be considered a resignation under a cloud; the fact, however, is that it didn't, so I don't honestly know if the policy as currently written authorises crats to refuse to resysop Secret. What I know is that, unfortunately, his undertaking not to block anyone except obvious vandals, while commendable is not enforceable under the current rules. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    That's a good explanation of what happened. My understanding was that the crat's should be the ones who decide whether a desysop was made "under a cloud" at the time. I believe the committee made the right decision at the time in not making any comments on his resignation publicly, there is no point in adding stress to that sort of situation. WormTT(talk) 09:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand these comments. Is there a reason why these discussions were held privately, but it's now OK to mention them in public? Did someone make a request to ArbCom for a case to be heard privately regarding Secret's use of the tools, or does ArbCom regularly hold off-wiki discussions regarding admin conduct of its own motion? Is it possible to know what block was being discussed? If the discussion had proceeded, and a majority of Arbitrators been concerned about the tool misuse, what steps would have been taken? WJBscribe (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    One of the things my questions are designed to help me understand is whether this was in any way official ArbCom business or whether it was just an off-wiki discussion between editors who happen to be Arbitrators... WJBscribe (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    For clarity, one Secret's final actions prior to resigning his tools was to make a block under Arbcom Enforcement. That block was then successfully appealed through BASC. BASC discussions are always heard privately and so the tangential discussion regarding Secret's use of the tools was also discussed privately. The action also fell under Arbcom jurisdiction as it was an Arbcom Enforcement block, which cannot be overturned by a single admin. As such, I would absolutely consider it to be official ArbCom business rather than an off-wiki discussion. The general consensus was to have a quiet word with Secret, due to the fact he'd already resigned his tools. Finally, if it's not clear, due to my participation in the earlier discussion, I am in fact recused as a bureaucrat in this matter. WormTT(talk) 11:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    I really don't suspect anything nefarious here, but if Arbs can come in and claim that there was a private, Arb only discussion about desysoping prior to a voluntary desysoping, and have that (after the fact) claim block a resysoping, it would allow a few Arbitrators to essentially overrule 100 or so people at RFA without presenting a case or even evidence. It would have a chilling effect and make sysops much less willing to voluntarily surrender the bit for any reason. It would change our current meaning of "under a cloud" and empower Arbs in an area normally reserved for Crats. I'm not trying to oversimply, I know this is complicated, but this precedent would be more dangerous than giving a former admin the bit. Nothing bars Arb from opening a case now if they feel there is a problem. I'm not sure that drifting away from a strict interpretation of current policy is a good thing when it comes to how Crats respond here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not quite - he removed his bit weeks prior to the BASC appeal, I do not believe any Arbitrator was aware of the case before the BASC appeal. You can't desysop someone without the bit. As I said previously, Arbcom should not have said anything publicly when a user has resigned his tools due to personal circumstances, it would only put addition pressure on off-wiki issues.

    Arbcom as a committee is not blocking the re-sysop, we've had a few arbitrators comment to explain what issues we have with returning his tools. It may be that the crat's decide to re-sysop, then the onus would be on Arbcom to make the decision on whether to follow its desysop procedures. Personally, I would be satisfied if Secret followed the compromise I thought he'd agreed to, getting a majority of his "recall posse" to agree to his re-sysop. WormTT(talk) 12:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

    Salvio's post above says "when Secret asked to be desysopped, a block of his was being discussed by ArbCom" (my emphasis), but I now understand that the discussion happened weeks later? Would it be possible to get confirmation in relation to this point - if the discussion happened afterwards, then it is weaker evidence of Secret having resigned the tools to evade scrutiny. Also, what consequence was likely to flow from the discussion? It seems to me that, at most, Secret was likely to be asked to avoid Arbitration Enforcement (something which Floquenbeam has now asked and Secret has agreed to), but a case or motion to desysop was unlikely. Is this a fair assessment? WJBscribe (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    The basic point holds. Again, I don't see anything "evil" going on here, it is the idea that this might set a precedent that worries me. YOU, I trust. Same for Salvio. I'm not sure I trust whoever gets elected next year, particularly since the Crats don't have access to the full story. For me, it isn't even about Secret as much as the process and making sure we don't open a can of worms by creating authority that doesn't exist within current policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There's some mighty sketchy business occurring here. Arbs speaking as arbs, but not as part of ArbCom (?), under-a-cloud resignations with no public clouds, the works. It seems to me if ArbCom were "officially" unhappy with Secret's use of the admin tools, they should have made it clear six months ago that they recommended/insisted on a new RfA. Failing that I don't it's fair for them to suddenly air their private conversations at this point, even though very few of us knew or considered Secret's resignation to have been borne of controversy.

    FWIW, as part of Secret's recall group, I support his resyopping, though chiefly on principle. If he (doubtfully) attempts to block or harass Demiurge, or anybody else without proper cause, there are plenty of admins—myself included—prepared to take action. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm now part of Secret's recall posse and have no objections to his resysopping. If there is any hint of a cloud here under which Secret resigned, it's at least partially the responsibility of ArbCom. ArbCom Enforcement action is a notoriously tricky area to get involved (which is why so few administrators bother with it) and there is a considerably higher risk of collateral damage. It is, by its nature, an area full of POV pushers, sockpuppets, badly behaved users and general horribleness. I would therefore be looking for a significant and continued history of disastrous enforcement action before I would consider raising an Arbitration case to press for desysopping for someone working in that area.
Guidance (concerning the block in question) was sought from the committee about whether ArbCom enforcement blocks can be 'transferred' to another specific administrator or whether they're open to being lifted by any administrator in the event of the blocking administrator resigning or becoming inactive. No guidance was forthcoming from the committee and there was no option but to refer the blocked user to request an unblock via the BASC process.
This whole sorry process of potentially secret under-a-cloud resignations and ArbCom objections to resysopping is worrying and there's a feeling of trying to implement new policy on the fly here right now. Not good. Nick (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the "Guidance sought" do you happen to have a link for that? I must have missed it. WormTT(talk) 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The relevant stuff is on the user's talk page, but I think there was discussion elsewhere. Nick (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Secret has agreed not to block anyone who is not a vandal, and has agreed not to do any AE-related work; I expect he'll keep his word, so I'm no longer objecting. But I have no doubt that some of the same people complaining about top secret back channel discussions would probably have been even more outraged if we had said something publicly back in January/February after he resigned: "Secret has already resigned his tools, but that isn't enough for ArbCom, who must get their pound of flesh." --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. The concerning thing is that arbitrators have taken to using committee discussions as a rationale for personal objections to a resysopping. If an arb thinks a former admin was really an abusive, incompetent swine, they have every right to say that, but they don't have the right to try manufacturing a cloud by citing ArbCom conversations that did not have any on-wiki consequences. It puts local bureaucrats in an uncomfortable situation, as there's a now chance they've just gone against a kinda/sorta, half-baked, quasi-official ArbCom mandate. I guess it just strikes me as ironic to say "I am commenting in my personal capacity and not on behalf of ArbCom" and then advertise what ArbCom thinks, complete with such pronouns as "we". Nothing against any present company, and I hate to beat the newly deceased horse, but this ordeal makes me uneasy. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for tools back (Secret)

I'm going to recuse as bureaucrat, but had some questions:

  1. is User:Secret/recall still in effect, i.e. if any of those three users think you should resign, Wizardman may involuntary remove your tools and you'll never run again? and
  2. Did Wizardman agree to this arrangement?
  3. Is it a good idea to have that page stating that you won't ask for a de-sysopping until 6 months after a sysopping (as it seems to read)? (Wouldn't it be better to drop the tools at any time if you no longer felt comfortable holding them?)

Thanks, –xenotalk 18:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I will also recuse as a 'crat (I've interacted with Secret slightly on IRC; not nearly enough to make me involved, I would think, but 'tis best to avoid doubt), but I think we need to be careful of overreaching here. As several people have already noted, our discretion as 'crats is extremely limited; I don't think that those questions--nor some of the other concerns that some others have raised--are relevant to this request. Retroactive declarations of cloudiness are, of course, right out. The task before us is to: "Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." If we decide not to restore bits based on anything other than an answer to that question (and the others on the WP:RESYSOP page, which nobody has challenged), we will have overstepped our authority, which is a thing that the community very clearly expects 'crats not to do. Those are our limits, like it or not; I'm not a huge fan of them, as it happens, but we all must abide by them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    Since I recused as a bureaucrat, I'm not asking those questions as a 'crat but as a concerned community member. (Also, nowhere have I stated an objection to this request.) –xenotalk 00:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that under current policy, Secret can have the tools back for the asking. If the community wants the policy changed, for example to include controversial circumstances following a resignation as a reason for the tools not to be returned, or to give bureaucrats greater discretion in general, that needs to be done properly. I'm going to sleep on it, but at present I am minded to action this request. If people want to take steps thereafter, the usual options (voluntary recall, user conduct RfC, ArbCom request) remain available, in the same way as if Secret had not resigned in the first place. WJBscribe (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that my view remains unchanged. I will wait for answers to my questions above regarding the ArbCom discussion, but on balance I am still minded to restore the tools. WJBscribe (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur with WJB said above. If the users resignation of the tools was not expressly to avoid sanction, and in this case it does not appear that way, then they may be restored on request. -- Avi (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And I concur, too. Bureaucrat authority is strictly defined and I'm in agreement with the other Crats above that we have no power or right to withold the tools under these circumstances even should we wish to, however persuasive the logic or emotion poured out here. As such, I am restoring Secret's tools. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Xeno: sorry for the late reply as I'm in the process of moving and I got no internet connection. Yes I will still be open to recall, and yes Wizardman agreed to the process. Next time I'll use forced wikibreak scripts if I need to take a wikibreak instead of asking for removal of the tools. Thanks all Secret account 18:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot flagging needed

Hello 'crats! Please see the following bot request: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/T13bot. Trials have completed, and production operations can begin once the bot flag has been set. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Acalamari 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Global renames are now active

Hi, fellow 'crats! I see from meta that the global rename tool has finally been released. Since SUL finalization isn't a thing yet, it'll only operate on usernames that aren't taken on any WMF wiki, but that still accounts for nearly all of the requests we fulfill on CHU/S. I propose that, in order to prevent any more fracturing of SULs, we start forwarding eligible simple rename requests on CHU/S to meta:SRUC, where the stewards will handle them with the new tool (despite the out-of-date instructions on that board). Since Legobot already checks for accounts on other wikis, both SUL and unattached, any request that's flagged as "no problems found" by Legobot should be eligible. Shutting down CHU/S entirely is also an option, of course, which will have the benefit of not making users file two requests, but keeping CHU/S open will give us a chance to filter out requests for usernames that aren't compliant with either the global rename requirements or enwiki policy (at least to some extent). (Perhaps we could file the meta request for them? Stewards, would that be cool?) Anyway, thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd very much like this. The finalisation will be a lot easier if we reduce the number of accounts that we need to globalise, and since RenameUser detaches local accounts from global ones when it's used, I'd like to see RenameUser used as little as is possible. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Any chance Legobot or another bot could automatically move or copy these requests to Meta for us? 28bytes (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably. But I don't really have time to write code to do that, so it would be great if another bot op could pick it up. Legoktm (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that it is the simplest rename requests that will need referring to meta, and these are mostly made by very new users. Simply saying we won't do it here and asking them to post to another board on another project (before a user is likely to realise that there is more than one project) would be off-putting. Ideally we would want a bot to:

  1. Identify that the request is suitable to a global rename.
  2. Make a suitable request on meta, linking to the one on enwiki.
  3. Let the user know that the request is being processed (maybe link to meta, although I do wonder if that is confusing).
  4. Mark the request as {{done}} after it has been actioned on meta.

Do others agree? Is this achievable, or will we need human users to do some of these steps? WJBscribe (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The most important thing is to quickly ascertain whether or not a request is suitable to a global rename, because a fair amount will not be. Sending a new user on a multiple-step paper chase can be off-putting to the new user. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's why I suggested that we do the extra paperwork on meta. We're bureaucrats, after all. (Also, it *is* quick to ascertain suitability; Legobot already checks for username usage on other accounts, so if Legobot says "no problems found," and the username meets the policies here, then we file their request on meta. Shouldn't be too hard; it's a little more time consuming than Special:Rename (and has to wait for a steward), but shouldn't be too bad, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree too. If someone could write a bot to focus on the simple situations - following WJBscribe's steps, that would be brilliant. WormTT(talk) 07:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
A bot can pretty easily determine whether a rename request is technically eligible (Legobot assentially does it right now), but it won't be able to determine whether the new name complies with the enwiki username policy. Enwiki policy is not a global policy, of course, but anyone requesting a rename at CHU/S clearly wants to edit at enwiki; automatically forwarding their request to Meta--where it will more likely than not be fulfilled, despite potentially violating enwiki policy--seems quite silly, since they'll just get blocked for username violations. An automated bot is well and good, but we still need to have humans vet this before the request on meta is made; if a hold for approval (perhaps only from 'crats?) between WJBscribe's step 1 and step 2 could be implemented, that would be good, but otherwise I foresee problems. (Either that, or we could just ditch enwiki username policy entirely, and something tells me that's not gonna fly.)
Also, y'know, a bot's gonna take time (I don't even know what the rules for crosswiki bots are), and I think the sooner we get this started, the better. I wish we could commit to doing the extra paperwork ourselves (as we shouldn't be asking the people themsleves to do it) and get this ball rolling. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WJBscribe's steps, clerks can help with vetting requests, pretty much as we do now, providing this is the direction we go. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Global username policy

Has a global username policy been hammered out yet? –xenotalk 10:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, no. But stewards will be reluctant to rename accounts to anything obviously inappropriate, or promotional. --Rschen7754 10:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is any way to make a functional global username policy - it would be a royal pain to try and implement and nobody would be happy. Many username policy directly conflict with each-other, and I doubt that people would be convinced that theirs is inferior. What we can do is add to the global renaming policy usernames to avoid depending on the most active wikis of the people requesting renames. For example, if someone requests a global rename who is active mainly on eswiki, we would do our best to adhere to eswiki account naming policies. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • If someone has a global username that infringes a local policy, it will presumably be blocked if they try to edit with it on that project. The user will then have a choice of being globally renamed to something acceptable on all projects, or to have a different login for the project that doesn't accept the global name. On that basis, there is less danger of not having a global username policy acceptable to all wikis. I presume however that there are some names a steward will not rename to - e.g. obviously offensive, racist, sexist etc - in which case there will inevitably have to be some sort of basic global rename policy. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Agreed on all this. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Agree, the main issue is when something is not offensive if one language, but is in another. But if the user requesting the rename is contributing significantly to more than one project then they only have themselves to blame if they get blocked for picking a name that is offensive in one of the languages. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think our approach would be "This is not allowed on enwiki; are you sure you want to go through with this rename, knowing that your account may be blocked there?" It's similar to how usernames are handled already when it is allowed at one wiki but not another. --Rschen7754 21:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If there is no global rename policy that stewards will be following; wouldn't it be simpler to extend the globalrename right to local bureaucrats on larger wiki? With the overzealous username enforcement in place on en.wiki, I am very concerned that we will now be sending potentially good faith new users on a very confusing first journey into Wiki(p/m)edia, and that Stewards will not be acting as a check and balance in the username enforcement process as bureaucrats (and CHU clerks) do now. –xenotalk 14:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • There's been discussion of something like that at the Stewards' Noticeboard thread above: meta:Stewards'_noticeboard#Global_renamers. Basically, I don't think people are too thrilled about people who have only been vetted by one community being given a tool that affects all communities. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
      • To add to that, a lot of us are admins at large wikis and are certainly capable of performing these checks. Also per QuiteUnusual. --Rschen7754 17:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to help out with performing some of these SUL renames. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for a re-sysopping process

I would like to request the re-sysopping of my account according to the WP:RESYSOP procedure.

I always received only good feedback about my adminship or any other contributions in the past since 2004. This was the only time that my administrative permissions have been suspended for any reason. It was done because of this inactivity period:

  • last edit before the inactivity - 24 October 2012 [4]
  • first edit after the inactivity - 18 July 2014 [5]

Here are some relevant links:

Please tell me if I have to provide any other info. Thank you. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 03:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not a Crat myself, but I don't see any obvious problems after looking around a bit. I just wanted to let you know we have a 24 hour waiting period to allow investigation now. I do notice that you really haven't been active since 2011, which doesn't affect this request, but there has been a lot of policy change since then. I think the Crats have a link for helping get up to speed on recent policy changes. Welcome back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The answer to the third Q cracked me up. I'm guessing that it was one of the first uses of the standard question. I'll echo Brown's welcome back, as well as the encouragement to read up on policy changes. This is a different place than in 2011.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ohh, as someone who recently came back after being inactive since 2011 I can say it is not that different. Chillum 16:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In one sense I agree with you. If you understand concepts such as Notability, which have been reasonably stable for some time, applying common sense will serve you well. However, there was no such thing as a G13 in 2011, and CSD has grown from 50K to 65K since then. Some may be simply bloat, but there might be some changes. There was no such thing as a Draft namespace back then. More at Wikipedia:Update.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
We get paid 65K for CSD now? Nice! --Rschen7754 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, no issues known to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to everyone for comments, support and restoring my permissions. Best regards. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 12:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Records of resysoppings

Hello,

I'm updating the figures at Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month to take resysoppings into account. So far I've managed to get a list for all of them since 2013 from the history of Wikipedia:Former administrators, which didn't record them before that - is there a comprehensive list anywhere? Thanks,  — Scott • talk 21:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you could pull the data from Special:Log/rights and filter the logs for administrator rights changes; unless @Moe Epsilon: has a better idea? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
While doing research for my recent RfA I stumbled across WP:List of resysopped users, which has information that would seem to be useful for this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
PERFECT! Thank you. I hoped something like that would exist somewhere.
And er... now that I look again, it is actually linked from the bottom of Wikipedia:Former administrators. Whoops. In my defense, the "see also" links are off the bottom of my screen when the list of recent desysoppings is visible. Ahem.... I've popped a link to it higher up.  — Scott • talk 01:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Request

Resolved
 – Request fulfilled.

I'd like to request a voluntary desysopping, please. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • You are in the middle of a contentious ANI issue, are you sure this is the time you want to do this? I'm not sure how the "cloud" rule be seen if you want to get it back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that Nikkimaria's request follows my suggestion at WP:AN[6], and her reply there[7] implies that this request was a response to it.
      My understanding was that this would fall under the "cloud" rule, which was why I suggested that a new RFA would be required before adminship could be restored.
      The bureaucrats' view is what counts, and my interpretation carries no weight. But I hope that this clarifies the context of Nikkimaria's request. Maybe it would help to have some 'crat input so that Nikkimaria is clear about where she stands?-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That sounds good, I didn't want to get involved in the discussion (but I went and read some after this comment) and just wanted to make sure it was an informed decision. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks Dennis. I don't think I'm currently in any danger of an involuntary desysopping, but this is my choice - I only wish I'd done it a few weeks earlier, when I was first considering it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
          • That there is no danger of involuntary desysopping does not automatically mean that this is not a resignation under a cloud. For more information, I'd suggest reading WP:CLOUD. I've not looked into this situation enough to say whether your request constitutes resigning under a cloud, but please be aware that it not as clear cut as you might think it is. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
            • WP:Under a cloud is indeed much broader than Nikkimaria appears to think. FWIW, my view is that 1) the discussion at WP:AN does amount to a cloud, and 2) that an involuntary desysopping is now a real possibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
              • My view is that there was no de-admin procedure in train, no Arbcom process, and no effort to avoid sanction, and therefore no WP:CLOUD. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say that the AN discussion, in which a topic ban is proposed and supported by several editors in good standing that Nikkimaria is disruptive with respect to infoboxes, is a pretty fluffy cumulostratus formation. Andrevan@ 06:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd agree regarding the weather forecast, but having read the discussion I would like also to tip my hat to Nikkimaria for her show of integrity. WormTT(talk) 07:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Me too - an honourable response indeed. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks guys, I know that - what I wanted to make clear was, cloudy or not, this was my decision and no one else's. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    In which case, I have removed your sysop bit. Thank you very much for all your help over the years and I wish you the best of luck for the future. WormTT(talk) 12:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, I'd like to echo the comments of the above users on your response here - it shows real integrity. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Another echo. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to mention that the AN topic ban proposal closed non-consensus, in large part due to the desysopping, prior to which the topic ban seemed likely to achieve consensus in favor of the restriction. Monty845 21:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, the community response to the desysop is quite significant, as evidenced by several commendations for integrity above, and I am inclined to agree. So any consensus that was building for a topic ban would really be invalid. A new discussion would have to happen if the community still feels that Nikkimaria is being disruptive after this. Andrevan@ 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Request re-admin

Resolved
 – Boing! said Zebedee's admin right have been restored WormTT(talk) 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I wish to request the restoration of my admin status solely so that I can revert the unjust blocking of @Eric Corbett:, which was clearly based on the personal feelings of an emotionally involved admin. Should the situation be resolved in the next 24 hours, please disregard this request. Should you decide to restore my admin status, I shall request its subsequent removal immediately after I unblock Eric. Please also note that my admin resignation was not under a cloud, and I do not believe crats have any policy-based reason to refuse my request. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: That user has already been unblocked. — xaosflux Talk 15:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Writ Keeper: — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Given the intervention by Jimbo at User talk:DangerousPanda#Unfortunate, please continue with my request for the reinstatement of my admin tools after a 24 hour period. If I feel I need to use the tools in this case I will use them once and then I will be gone from Wikipedia - either way, I will request their removal again once this issue is concluded. (And again, I do not believe crats have any policy-based reason to refuse my request). — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So first you ask for your tools to so you can undo a valid block. Then when Jimbo shows up and points out it was a valid block you want your tools back for one more action before you leave?
What exactly is this one final admin action is that you want to do? If there is no policy based reason to refuse this request then I hope common sense is available. Chillum 18:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether a block is valid is not for Jimbo or his lackeys to dictate, it is for the community to decide. Do you have a policy-based reason why I cannot have my admin tools back? If so please explain it here, and if not please fuck off and let the crats decide. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
(e.c.) I disagree with your (Chillum's) summary. You (and others) say it was a valid block. Others (and yet others) say it isn't. That makes it neither a valid nor an invalid block, but a controversial block. Moreover, though I don't agree with your opinion, I neither believe it lacks sense nor do I believe I've cornered the market on common sense. There are disagreements that cannot be resolved by saying you are right and non-you are wrong. (And please don't leave over this dime-a-dozen fuss, Boing!) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I will not opine on Alan's request for readminship, but I do hope he will reconsider his statement implying that he might leave Wikipedia over the situation he describes. That recurring situation is unfortunate for a host of reasons, but losing an experienced editor over it would only compound the harm that has already occurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts appreciated, Newyorkbrad and Sluzzelin, and I will only depart if my request for resysop is declined or if it is granted and I feel the need to actually use it over this issue — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please Decline.Crat discretion needs to be used. Boing! said Zebedee wants to tools to unblock User:Eric Corbett unilaterally if he is blocked again and if he does it will inflame sitution led to more drama ,Ani action and led to Arbcom.(Note the issue is being discussed in ANI and it can resolved no need for tools for him.)Someone else will come and say he wants his tools back to block somebody , unblock somebody,delete pages,block Jimbo or Delete Main Page and leave the project.What would a crat do ? 205.178.136.76 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you point to any policy that ought to prevent the restoration of tools in this case based on what you think Boing! might do? Eric Corbett 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well nobody here is required to use their tools, same goes with the crats. I don't think policy prevents or requires a response to this request. Chillum 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So how does that work? If all the bureaucrats ignore this request is that not a response? Eric Corbett 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I object to this WP:POINTy request in the strongest possible terms. The requester has made it abundantly clear that he intends to use the admin bit to disrupt and otherwise add to an already unpleasant situation. This is not beneficial to the project.- MrX 23:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Object to deliberately pointy and disruptive request. Bureaucrats are as well able to understand and act on WP:IAR as anyone else, and this is absolutely a prime case of that. The requester openly indicates his intention to make sure that legitimate actions made by other administrators may not take place, and that he will request his admin rights solely for over-ruling community consensus on that basis. If he genuinely believes there is community consensus for the actions he plans to take, then he should undertake a new RfA on that basis; or open an RfC on the issue. Any crat who panders to this childish nonsense, should retire themselves immediately afterwards. Their credibility will be gone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Even though I'm not a advanced privilege holder, I have to regard the original request for bits back to WP:WHEELWAR was unbelievably in poor taste. Now that there has been a reasonable objection to why B!sZ shouldn't have the tools back we get WP:DIVA like threats and more threats to wheel war. If there was doubt about the suitability of the mop closet key in their hands, there is no longer any doubt. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring who the blocked user in question is, the question the former admin is asking is, at its core "unblock me so I can engage in a wheel war". Suffice to say, no one in their right mind would accept such a rationale. Providing the tools given the environment would cause harm no matter who it was making that kind of request. It doesn't matter to me whether the tools are to block or unblock the user (it's long been accepted by people that Eric's exempt from any rules of decorum), it would at best add fuel to the fire. Whatever stance Boing wishes to make on this situation could easily be done without the tools, which has already been done. Wizardman 23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be you who's exempt from any rules of decorum. Eric Corbett 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
What's funny is that, for all the bad-mouthing you do against admins, I've never seen admins rally around a user positively like they do with you. You should enjoy it, not many get that level of rallying. Wizardman 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
What bad mouthing? I treat admins no differently from anyone else. Eric Corbett 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
After this request it is clear Boing does not have temperament to be an admin and his threats to leave is clearly WP:DIVA 205.178.136.76 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
But if he is not under a WP:CLOUD, is there any reason to deny the request? Is a rationale required at all? Couldn't any admin do something wrong? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to go as far as Wizardman does; Boing and Eric are correct when they say that there is no policy-based reason to decline this request altogether, and if another 'crat wants to, they are justified in fulfilling this request after the waiting time is over. However, like Wizardman, and with sincere compliments and respect to both Boing and Eric, I'm not going to do so myself. Boing has explicitly said that he wants the right restored to start a wheel war (no lawyering about whether it would be the second or third move or whatever; it's a wheel war), and I personally will not be party to it. It has nothing to do with Eric; I don't think I can fairly be called an Eric hater, though I doubt he thinks much of me. I haven't followed this case closely enough to form a real opinion about whether the block was justified or not, but on the face of it, I'm not really convinced that the block of Eric was justified. It's irrelevant, though, because wheel warring is not the way to solve it, and Boing, you know it. I don't disagree with your goals, but I do disagree with your prospective methods, and I'll have no part in it.
    As an aside, I haven't discussed this with anyone, 'crat or not, and I haven't seen any discussion of this on any offwiki channels, such as the 'crat mailing list. This decision of mine is purely mine, decided well before now (I had actually typed up something similar to this before Wizardman posted, but got called away before I had finished it). There's no reason why any other 'crat should be bound by either Wizardman's or my decision; as I said, this is a purely personal decision, and there isn't really a policy-based reason to decline this out of hand. If it so happens that the 'crats are all of the same mind--which I kinda doubt--Boing could probably go over our heads to Meta and request his bit of the stewards there, so this isn't an attempt by the 'crats to collectively force a pocket veto. It's just me, as far as I know. I could write more, but I won't: if y'all think that this is conduct unbecoming of a 'crat, you know where my talk page is; the offer I made in question 11 still stands. Peace, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • With respect to Writ Keeper denying the request is clearly within the discretion of local Burecrats. First, per WP:RESYSOP point 3, the process is essentially a mini-RfA. Second the stated goal for regaining the Admin bits was to wheel war over a block they felt was unjust which clearly indicates that they were WP:INVOLVED emotionally. Third the request was cancelled once the user was unblocked and re-established when there was danger of the unblock being overturned which indicates a flighty temperment and specific agenda that the regaining of Admin bits was to ensure that the user in/out of block status was protected from unjustified blocks. Fourth, per WP:BURO the stated intent of this resysop was to drop the bits shortly after their wheel warring unblock had been enacted which creates a bunch of busywork in terms of resysoping/desysopping. The action leads to the potential of causing harm to the encyclopedia by pulling many editors who contribute both content and time into a giant drama fest where we again argue "What does civility mean?" including potentially an ArbCom case to stip Boing of their admin bits for cause. For these reasons I suggest that the Buerecrats take an affirmative action in denying the request for Admin bits to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Hasteur, you have repeated the lie that my "stated goal for regaining the Admin bits was to wheel war" several times now, but it remains a lie — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • So that you're on record contradicting yourself, you assert that you want the tools back to undo a block on a user after one admin blocked (which constitutes a an affirmative action) while at the same time using specifically charged language to indicate that you disagree with the action on a emotional level (thereby making you WP:INVOLVED). Under the strictest definition of wheel war, yes you would not be reinstating a reverted admin action, however your action (had it been completed) would have deliberately violated admin policy (if you are about to revert a administrative action, talk it over with the enacting admin) because you failed to do so prior to going on the warpath for bits. So for these reasons I consider your message of 08:53, 30 July 2014 to be a personal attack thereby rendering you de jure unfit for restoring Admin bits. Whild I'd prefer to not have to, if a Bureaucrat does restore your admin credentials, I intend to file an ArbCom request seeking removal of your admin bits for cause and the removal of burecrat for failure to be ...bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner. per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats as there is significantly above the 25% opposition that a RFA would have been subjected to. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          There is significantly below 25% opposition, when you take into account the past strong community consensus for WP:RESYSOP, that unless the administrator resigned under a cloud or has been inactive over 3 years, they should be resysopped. Unless you have evidence that Boing! Said Zebedee was evading scrutiny when he resigned, I intend to resysop him. I will, of course, recuse from any ArbCom case. WormTT(talk) 13:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The contradiction is only in your mind, not in any of my words - and your claim that my "stated goal for regaining the Admin bits was to wheel war" remains the lie that it has always been. If you think you have any realistic chance of having my admin bit removed by ArbCom without my having done anything wrong, then you're welcome to try - I could do with a laugh! (My intention was to resign the bit again fairly soon, but I'm happy to hang on to it for longer in order to help you in your quest if you like) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Boing, I agree with Writ Keeper and Wizardman. And there's no need for it anyway: apparently the project is full of enabling and corrupt admins who are willing to unblock Eric, Writ Keeper probably being on top of that list. Come on, retract the request--I can't keep track of every single noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Eric Corbett, but I do know that Boing said Zebedee, if that is his real name, can have his sysop bit back if he provides me with diffs showing that he gave it up uncontroversially, or unless someone can provide me with diffs showing some kind of vandalism or disruption. While I applaud the creative thinking going on here with respect to the ability to act unilaterally to protect the encyclopedia at the expense of nonsensical policy, this user did not have to give any reason to get the bit back assuming he did not give it up under a cloud. Andrevan@ 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While it is true he did not have to give a reason, he has done that. Chillum 06:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't change the criteria for resysopping. If he chooses to wheel war with his sysop bit he will probably find himself RFCed or worse. If he decided to go through with the request he will be advised to continue abiding by our policies and guidelines. The bureaucrat resysop task isn't empowered with pre-crime. Andrevan@ 06:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alan asked to be desysopped in a grump here. I've looked at his actions at the time and I can see nothing to imply that the desysop was under a cloud. As such, he meets the criteria for resysopping. It's not up to the 'crats to retroactively declare a cloud because of actions a year later. It's also not up to the 'crats to decide not to re-sysop because the user is making a point. Alan knows this, which is exactly why he's making the ruddy point. Alan, I'm unimpressed - there was no need to make this request in such a pointy way and if you are resysopped (and I see no reason why you shouldn't be), it would not be an endorsement of your statement, nor your future actions. I have no doubt that if you act in the manner you suggest, you would be subject to an Arbcom case. WormTT(talk) 07:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Dave, you should read what I actually said, not what the backstabbers claim I said. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    My comments were specifically on your original request - requesting an resysop solely so you could unblock Eric. That was a pointy statement, an evocative statement in a period of high tensions. You know that, I know that. I don't think you'd wheel war, never did. I do think that you are considering using your tools in a POINTy manner and that's what I'm concerned about. WormTT(talk) 07:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, it was indeed a pointy and evocative statement - it was meant to be. But at the time, my stated intention would not have broken any Wikipedia rules (I know we both know that, but I think it needs to be stressed again as some people commenting here don't seem to understand), and I still do not intend to break any rules. There will be no ArbCom case. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    In which case, I have every intention of returning the bit to you once the 24 hour period has passed - unless anyone can point me to a policy based reason why I shouldn't. WormTT(talk) 08:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Folks, my original request was so that I could unblock Eric, and that *would not* have been a wheel war. Since he has been unblocked, I have *not* specifically said what I would or would not do with the tools and I *have not* said I would engage in a wheel war. My request stands, I want the tools back for a few days in case I feel a need to use them (for a purpose not specified), and as I did not resign the tools under a cloud there are no policy-based reasons to deny it. My earlier desysop request can be found at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 28#Desysop please — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen as much bad faith assumed by the experienced editors as I have in this discussion. Alan made a very pointy statement and so many people jumped to the conclusion that the use of the admin tools would be to wheel war. The only thing he said was that if Eric was reblocked he would use the tools one time and leave. If it was to wheel war, what would that accomplish? Alan would be blocked, lose his bit and Eric would be reblocked. So is that likely the one use of his tools? I don't think so. More likely scenario is that he would ask for his tools to be removed here, at the same time block himself indefinitely and then leave the project. In this scenario we can assume good faith that a long time editor is done with the project and wishes to leave. An assumption of bad faith has to be made to get to the other scenario. I am amazed at the names I see above that assumed that Alan would use the tools to wheel war or disrupt the project, MrX, Demiurge1000, Wizardman, Writ Keeper, Hasteur, Drmies. GB fan 10:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I see no policy-based reason why we can withold Boing's request to regain his tools and if I'm around in a while when the 24hrs expire, I'll restore them. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you - I shall not retain the tools for long. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So, someone can hypothetically ask for the tools back to engage in vandalism, and we give them to the user no problem? Yeah, suffice to say that's ridiculous. Sure, policy isn't on the side of those not wanting to restore tools, but anyone that seriously sees no problem with what Boing said is out of their mind. Wizardman 12:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's so sad to see you descending to personal insults, Wizardman - had Eric told people they were out of their minds, the mob would be baying for his blocking — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess I am out of my mind. The only thing Alan said he was going to do was unblock Eric if he was still blocked when his tools were restored. After Eric was unblocked, he never said what he was going to do, just that if Eric was reblocked he would do one last admin action and leave. He never mentioned vandalism, he never mentioned wheel warring, he never said he was going to disrupt the project. You have to assume bad faith in Alan's intentions to get any of those things and that is what you and others have done. GB fan 12:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@GB fan:: You should read more carefully. | never said anything about wheel warring. I said disrupt. Boing's admin resignation occurred during a previous Eric Corbett block/unblock discussion, and now here we are again. While it's clear that 'crats have no policy-based reason not to return the bit, the fact is that the request itself adds to the drama and the erosion of trust that the community has placed in admins. If you're looking for bad faith, read the request again and note that BHG is described as "emotionally involved". Also, does anyone wonder why Jimbo's "intervention" on DangerousPanda's talk page necessitates Boing's urgent request for resysoping?- MrX 12:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should read more carefully, I said, "I am amazed at the names I see above that assumed that Alan would use the tools to wheel war or disrupt the project. Some of the people I listed assumed he wanted to wheel warring and others assumed he would be disruptive. The little word "or" makes all the difference in the world. GB fan 12:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, Alan's request for the tools back came before Jimbo's "intervention" on DangerousPanda's talk page. So it did not necessitate an urgent request for resysoping. GB fan 12:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Wizardman, I've looked at what Boing said.
  • [8] requested re-adminship to overturn a block he believed was "... based on the personal feelings of an emotionally involved admin." Wheel warring kicks in on the 3rd move, so an overturning a controversial block is within the remit of an administrator. They would need to be able to justify their actions, under WP:ADMINACCT, but it's certainly not against policy. The way he put it was not appropriate for this noticeboard, but there was nothing inherently wrong with the request. If he'd said "I want to be resysopped, solely to clear WP:PERM" we wouldn't have any problem at all, so we're pre-emptively debating his admin action? That's not what 'crats should be doing.
  • [9] requested resysop despite Eric already being unblocked. States that if he uses the tools, it will only be for one use then will leave the project. He hasn't said what it's going to be, but self-block seems the most likely, given the context. He went on to say to me
  • ...I still do not intend to break any rules. There will be no ArbCom case. That's sufficient for me. WormTT(talk) 12:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
GB fan and Worm That Turned So it's your contention that this diff doesn't constitute a threat to disrupt wikipedia to make a point and threaten to WP:WHEELWAR after the first request was semi-retracted? Glad to know who the enablers of the enablers are so that they can also be put on the block when the ArbCom case comes for desysoping Boing and de-crating the bureaucrats who failed to be ...bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. The policy based reason for not re-sysoping is to prevent damage to the project that based on the stated actions are to disrupt the project. Boing can claim all he wants that he won't violate policy and cause an ArbCom case, but the rule of the land is "restrictions should only be done to prevent damage to Wikipedia". This is echoed everywere from Block Policy, to Page Protection Policy, and to Permissions policy. It's a shame that Boing enumerated what his goal was in making the request, but since we now know it, the veil of ignorance is rent and we have no choice to consider the goal in the context of their request as it suggests theyre going to do a "unblock and run". Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
What I think is saddest here is to see a liar continuing their lies. Do you honestly think that repeatedly lying about my stated intention is going to get you anywhere? Especially when everyone can see every word I have said and can clearly see that you are lying? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Imagine a world where there are no policies... Good UNPARLIMENTARY LANGUAGE Boing. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than a lie, Boing!, I think this is a lack of understanding of WP:WHEELWAR. WormTT(talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps originally, yes - but when the same untruth is repeated after having been corrected... — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no threat of WHEELWAR, no. This very request was disrupting to make a point (in that he should have just said "can I have the bit back" and we wouldn't have had any of this long conversation) - but I don't see that he's threatening further. As I said above, there was strong community consensus for WP:RESYSOP. Do you have evidence that Boing! Said Zebedee resigned under a cloud or has been inactive over 3 years? WormTT(talk) 13:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not take that as a threat to wheel war or to disrupt. You read it with an assumption of bad faith and I read it with an assumption of good faith GB fan 13:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with others that the wording of this request was ill-advised. Our procedures allow for a return of the tools, but note that if you take up the tools and then relinquish them soon thereafter, any potential future resysop request would necessarily consider the new climate in which you relinquished the tools. –xenotalk 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I appreciate that, thanks - but my intention would be to never request resysop again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Request re-admin (Boing! said Zebedee)

Please move this discussion to User talk:Boing! said Zebedee or start a new subsection if further bureaucratic intervention is required. –xenotalk 17:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So now we have an admin that has the bit solely for the purpose of unblocking Eric Corbett the next time someone actually attempts to enforce policy against him? I have to say that this is probably the most short-sighted action by a bureaucrat I have witnessed.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Refusing to return the bit would just seem like further brinkmanship, in my opinion. –xenotalk 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you show me where I said "for the purpose of unblocking Eric Corbett the next time someone actually attempts to enforce policy against him" (my emphasis)? I think you'll find you can't, because I did not say that. I'll assume good faith and take it as a misunderstanding this time, but should you repeat your allegation I will consider it a lie. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
While your original request was obviously pointy, I would agree that it did not state an intention of wheel warring. Your second comment, made after the unblock, notably "If I feel I need to use the tools in this case I will use them once and then I will be gone from Wikipedia - either way" most certainly did represent a promise to wheel war, however. The implied statement was that if someone re-blocked Eric, you would use the tools to re-unblock and then duck responsibility by quitting the project. Fortunately, the argument is moot as you have promised to resign as an admin (again) once the situation is resolved. Since everyone knows that there is no point in blocking Eric again for this incident, I expect that your next act on Wikipedia will be to follow up on this promise. Resolute 14:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Re "The implied statement was that if someone re-blocked Eric, you would use the tools to re-unblock and then duck responsibility by quitting the project" - the inference is only in your head, and there was absolutely no threat to wheelwar. I would consider using my admin tools in any new dispute that might arise in the near future, that much I will admit - but I would do it as judiciously as I am able, and I would not run away from it. But the "one more action" to which I refer above is *not* anything to do with Eric, and I have yet to decide whether I will go through with it - but if I do, I'm pretty sure you will not be displeased. I will retain the admin bit until I decide whether or not to put it to that use - or long enough to assist Hasteur with his threat to take me to ArbCom, whatever. (But generally, all you people who assume you know what I'm thinking and what I intend to do, and condemn me for what's in your own heads but not in mine - well, you're behaving shamefully) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
And PS, yes, I do intend to make good on my promise to request desysop again (for the last time), but I will do it based on *my* judgement as to when currents issues are resolved to my satisfaction, not on *yours*. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I have a hard time buying this. Your request - first comment and second - clearly stated a desire to take an action that relates directly to the current situation involving Eric. Now you are claiming that your requested action has nothing to do with Eric. That may well be true as I obviously won't know until you either take said action or explain what you are considering, but surely you would agree that it is challenging to take such claims at face value when you appear to be moving the goalposts. And if many people come to the same conclusion about your apparent intention, I would argue the fault lies less in the people coming to that conclusion and more with how you presented your intention. Resolute 15:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I think that's fair comment, and I thank you for the first sign of respect I have seen from opponents since I started this. And I admit I have deliberately been opaque. However, I have not moved the goalposts, and when I said "I will use them once and then I will be gone from Wikipedia" way above, that intended once-only use was (and still is) an indefinite self-block. I find my time here becoming less and less rewarding and I find the environment becoming more and more poisonous. An attempted remedy earlier this year was to request a 3-month block, but its beneficial effect didn't last long after I returned. There are people I respect who are willing to issue such blocks, but not indefinite - only I can do that, and I think it is the only way I could wean myself away from this pit. So there it is - I was being deliberately pointy above, but now I'm being completely open. Make of that what you will. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. I'm probably fortunate that I can always fall back to editing the low controversy area of hockey articles when the drama becomes annoying. If you do choose to stay, I hope that you have/can find a similar quiet part of the project to enjoy. If not, then I wish you well on future endeavours. Resolute 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and my best wishes go to you too — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The blocking policy says that typically such self-block requests are refused but are not outright forbidden. If you ask me I would be willing to block you for you. Whichever duration you want. Chillum 16:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you would, but as I suggested above I would only ask "people I respect". Anyway, I don't need you now — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I see you have been re-sysoped so I will retract that offer. Please don't do anything an admin should not do. Chillum 16:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean like being patronizing to someone with almost seven years' experience and more than 60,000 edits including more than 21,000 in main space? I'll try not to. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You know very well that is not what I meant. Re-read what you have written on this page to see what I meant. You started this thread by declaring the intent to reverse a block. Not to discuss it with the admin, not to seek consensus for the unblock, but just to unblock. Admins discuss unblocks first and seek agreement with the blocking admin or seek consensus. I was not patronizing you, I was expressing concern about your judgment.
I have 50k+ edits over about 8 years, but I don't think that makes me immune to concerns about my judgement. Chillum 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I did actually check your contributions before I made that comment, but surely you can understand why I might not welcome advice from someone with little more than a tenth the mainspace contributions as me and who assumed bad faith here right from the start? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't suffer from editcountitis so I don't really see your point. I assumed you were going to do what you were talking about doing. Read what you said with an open mind and perhaps you can see why I was concerned. I am not the only one. It is not assuming bad faith when someone outright says what they are going to do. Chillum 16:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I really need to apologise, because I did not take into account your apparently undeclared alternative accounts - your Chillum account appears to have only 24,281 edits — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and you are confusing your own personal interpretation of what I said with what I actually said - but you are far from alone in that failing, and I am happy to forgive you - as long as you bear in mind your own advice and "Please don't do anything an admin should not do" — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Desysop again please

I'm about to use the admin tools for one last time to block my own account. When you see I have done it, please then feel free to remove my admin bit again - I shan't be back, so I will not be requesting its restoration again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Your account can of course be unblocked at any time should you request it. WJBscribe (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

De-sysop please

Good day,

I no longer see any sense in contributing to this place, and have no needs for the tools I have barely used in years. Good luck. MLauba (Talk) 00:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service and good luck. Acalamari 08:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

inactive admins for August 2014

Resolved

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 06:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks to all three for their hard work and here's hoping they return. WormTT(talk) 07:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting to note that Bryan, at one time, was the #1 (non-bot) editor in terms of edit count. I wonder what to make of this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Jeffrey O.Gustafson (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te) edited in May using an alternate account, Mr. Gustafson (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te).2601:C:5380:63C:E5D3:F1C3:A977:E490 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've posted at Jeffery's talk page, inviting him to engage with the Crats or myself. In the meantime, with the link between the accounts likely, but far from rigorous, there doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for overturning the desysopping. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Inactive desysops can be easily overturned if the user becomes active, he's been contacted a number of times, I don't see any reason to overturn until he asks. WormTT(talk) 07:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree and have reverted myself in similar circumstances in the past. I think the onus should be on us not to remove permissions unless people meet the inactivity criteria, rather than to make someone ask for the tools back when they shouldn't have been removed in the first place. I have personally dealt with Mr Gustafson under both user names and can confirm that they belong to the same person. WJBscribe (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I see your point Will, but WP:INACTIVITY clearly states "Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped" (emphasis mine). The procedure is, it seems to me, account specific not owner of the account specific. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  17:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with Pedro ,WP:INACTIVITY is clear .It is the account not the person of the account specified.An editor may edit using an IP this will not be taken into account.It was discussed here . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd never read the policy as being account specific and it hasn't been applied that way in the past. If we're going to apply it that way, it needs to be done consistently and Useight (talk · contribs) would need to be desysoped/decratted (is that a word?). WJBscribe (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Inclined to stick with commonsense. WJB's word is good enough for me and on that basis I'd be happy to grant the hat back to either account, if asked by the user. --Dweller (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any other admins left whose user page link is red, or was Jeffrey an endling? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Nah, there are still a few of those kicking around, including, but not limited to, JzG and Trappist the monk. Several more have their user pages simply redirect to their talk page. The user logs are fairly easy to scan to find them, if you're so inclined. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a relief! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkativerata 2

Wold a 'crat care to stroll over to the above RFA and indent a few of the WP:SPA opposes? [10] [11] [12] Pedro :  Chat  07:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, thanks for bringing this here. I'm not a fan of protecting RfA pages but I've semi-protected Mkativerata's request until the closing time and have blocked two of the accounts/IPs; Anna Frodesiak blocked the rest (thanks, Anna!). Acalamari 07:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Acalamari (hope you're well by the way). Seems a most sensible decision to me. I just removed the pointless WP:ANI report made by the various accounts as well. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Closure is pending/expired and the last minute additions and changes appear to be a form of canvassing irregular. Anyone care to lock the page while the closing B ponders the result? --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward:Do you have any evidence for this accusation? Canvassing is not a term we should be throwing around lightly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It should be at least closed as a hold in the meantime pending a discussion (or just closed if a crat prefers). I voted and have a fairly strong opinion so I'm probably the last crat that should be active else I would. Wizardman 23:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to start a 'crat chat about it, myself; it's close enough, and there is enough irregularity in the voting, that a chat is probably warranted, even though the count comes in just below the discretionary range. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to load it. It seemed odd is all and I chose wrong term. I refactored to "irregular" as I think you observed it too. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday it wasn't even close to discretionary range. There's been a dramatic change and the post-close latest addition puts it at the bottom of the discretionary range. I note there are lots of well respected editors, admins and bureaucrats voting for "Support" based on long term involvement while persons such as myself are voting based purely on single isolated events and a two year hiatus. The sky won't fall with a decision either way and I respect that the those with the tools are in favor of restoring them even with the understanding that only tool enabled Wikipedians will be able to clean up a mistake. A close either way is probably not going to create a hubub presuming he avoids deleting the main page and stuff. Just found it odd that what was looking like a SNOW close a few days ago is now borderline discretionary trough a series of late supports and flip-flops from oppose to support. I'd propose locking it sooner rather than later as a decision either way can be justified (even granting below 70%) but if looks like the voting is changing largely at the end, irregular and post the closing time will create more drama than just a page lock and discussion. "Getting to 70%" in the last day, post close time is a an unnecessary side show. I'd rather see a sharp deadline and decision either way based on discussion/discretion rather than keeping it open to get above the magical discretionary line. A thoughtful note on the close, either way is probably a good idea. --DHeyward (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess I can't sucker convince someone more familiar with the templates to put this on hold, so I've done it, and will open the cratchat for business presently. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Desysop request

Hi, please remove admin rights from my account. I haven't been active on this project for quite a while and my main focus nowadays is on fi.wp, so I don't have much use for the tools anymore. Thanks. Jafeluv (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Noting your post here and your user page change, I have removed your admin rights. Thank you for your service as an administrator. Acalamari 11:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jafeluv: we'll miss you, but I'm sure we'll still see you around Wikimedia. :) --Rschen7754 02:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for removal of 'expired' temporary administrative rights.

As per consensus amogst the many 'crats who have commented here, removal of admin rights can only be done by crats' at the request of the admin in question, at the direction of ArbCom, or in accordance with the inactivity policy. This falls under none of these three cases, thus one is encouraged to either take it up to ArbCom if they wish to request the removal of an admin's rights against their wishes, or to convince the admin to request the removal themselves. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eloquence (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Due to the ongoing drama, which I am not going to recount here, the question was recently raised multiple places as when and how Eloquence (talk · contribs) was granted administrator rights. As was discovered by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), and mentioned here, Eloquence was granted the userright on the basis of a request made here, on a temporary basis, for the purpose of executing a series of page moves. I would point out that Eloquence has posted to the ArbCom page since, and has not brought up any later events regarding his access to the administrative toolset.

Therefore, since the task for which Eloquence was temporarily granted the administrator userright has long been completed, and seeing that he was never approved as a permanent administrator by the community, I formally request that the userright be removed by a bureaucrat, in a purely nonpunitive manner, and that Eloquence be encouraged to submit an RfA if he desires to become a permanent administrator on the English Wikipedia. Reventtalk 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, bureaucrats can't do that. We can only remove rights for inactivity, a self-request, or on request of the arbitration committee. 28bytes (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I wonder what the plan was for handing in his tools when he was done ... and what options the community would have if he still has them under false pretense. Go Phightins! 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Um, that request is from 2003. As far as I'm aware, that pretty much was the RFA process of that era... look through the archives, you'll find more that look very similar to this +sysop. Courcelles 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know anything about how 2003 worked, but there was this, which looks a little more permanent. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, you'll find many requests for adminship that were not made as a temporary request 'for this purpose only'. I suspect that it was expect that he would, when he was done, say "I'm done now" and have the userright removed. Regardless, the task for which he request the tools has been long completed. The message that Shirik linked was Ed Pool's response to the request for temporary rights.Reventtalk 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the existing 'policy', which was obviously written to discuss the removal of the userright from administrators who were approved by the community, per the methods in place at the time of their appointment. Bureaucrats have the technical ability, however, to remove the right, and 'can' do so. A quite legitimate argument can be made, however, that when someone requested rights 'for this purpose only' that it is an implicit request that those rights be removed once the task is completed. It was simply never done, apparently. I'm not going to speculate on why Eloquence never handed his tools back in, but I have been unable to find any request, or approval, for him to have permanent adminship. The thread which I linked makes it explicitly clear that he was requesting the tools on a purely temporary basis, and that they were granted on that basis. A removal of the administrator userright from Eloquence would be a technical action, if taken by a bureaucrat, and not one in contravention to the expressed will of the community, unless someone wishes to bring up further evidence showing that Eloquence ever requested, or was granted, permanent adminship. Reventtalk 03:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The express will of the community is that bureaucrats are to remove permissions in one of the three cases outlined in Wikipedia:CRAT#Removal_of_permissions: by admin self-request, by express request of Arbcom, or by a year's inactivity. To desysop in any other scenario is to contravene the community's will. Period. Bureaucrats are given very little leeway in the exercise of our powers, and what little leeway there is still tends to be fairly well-defined (such as the discretion range of RfAs). There is not enough leeway here to do what you propose. As you've mentioned, this has already been brought up on the Arbitration case page; why not let Arbcom, who actually can remove a sysop's bit without their consent, make the call? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It was not a point at issue in the ArbCom case, and is well outside the scope of what is being discussed there, which is the Media Viewer RFA. Reventtalk 04:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the request page is right here. Doesn't change the fact that this is not our job. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"Arbitration is the final step in Wikipedia's process for dispute resolution." A request for an ArbCom case regarding something that had never been a dispute anywhere on Wikipedia would be, quite correctly, declined. An RfC/U on the matter would also be out of scope, as this is not a question of user conduct. I fail to any see other venue would be appropriate for initially raising the issue, and how it would be within the scope of any other venue unless the request had been made. I'd point at @Go Phightins!: question above as a fairly cogent statement of the question that needs to be answered. Reventtalk 04:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Point 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities is To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. As a side-note, point 1 in the same section is To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, implying that its role as the decider of requests for desysopping is separate from its role of being the final stop on the dispute resolution train. I'm not going to get drawn into a big wikilawyering match about this, though. If you want someone desysopped, Arbcom is your venue. There are no others on enwiki, including the bureaucrats. I don't like that, you probably don't like that, but them's the breaks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose retaliatory request for desysop. This request is meant to intimidate Eloquence for creating superprotect. The vague 'promise' 11 years ago was not so important as to have been enforced by the community at the time and we shouldn't be second judging decisions that are over a decade old. This kind of digging in the dirt is only surpassed by American politics.--v/r - TP 04:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to submit evidence showing that any decision to grant him permanent adminship was ever made. It's not second-guessing a 'decision' to ask that an oversight be corrected. To accuse me of trying to intimidate him is laughable. I'd also like to point out, just for the record, that TParis explicitly stated on #wikipedia-en that he made the prior statement purely for the basis of trying to provoke me into taking him to ANI for ad hominem attacks. Reventtalk 04:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Removed Off-wiki stuff, IRC conversations are off-wiki and should not be brought up here. TheMesquitobuzz 04:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the text that you removed. While it is fairly generally held that directly copy-pasting logs from IRC is a no-no (except with the consent of all parties) and that (except in certain narrow circumstances) we won't sanction editors solely for their conduct in off-wiki venues, there certainly isn't any bar to simply mentioning or describing off-wiki comments made by editors—particularly when those comments bear directly on their on-wiki actions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite right, TenOfAllTrades. Your restoration was appropriate. Despite that, Revent's misrepresents me, I never said such a thing. He asked me to explicitly state such but I ignored the request. I'm not sure what his intentions are to restate his question as if it actually happened. I guess he figures that since we cannot copy comments from IRC that he could freely make the accusation here. I made these comments on Wiki to repeat my opinion that I made on IRC so Revent could have it on the record if he so chose to. Other users on IRC were saying that I was taking advantage of the 'off the record' nature of IRC. Now the comments are firmly in the history. Either way, I still oppose intimidating folks by threatening desysop to get his way and I firmly oppose this. Luckily, it seems, that the 'crats view this request as outside of their purview and Revent will have to go to Arbcom, thus making his behavior more apparent to the community, before any chance of retaliatory action will happen.--v/r - TP 05:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
After me asking you three or four times to quit talking about your perception of my motivations instead of the merits or facts of what I requested, you posted here, linked it in IRC, and told me to take my accusations of ad hominem attacks to ANI. It was explicitly clear you were trying to provoke me. That being said, I'm not going to argue about this here, as it's off-topic. Reventtalk 06:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't have the authority to fulfill the request as framed. Eloquence or the Arbitration Committee would have to make this request. –xenotalk 05:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'm in agreement with the other Crats, too. I think it's time to close this thread. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Done

Please remove the sysop flag from my account. Thank you. — Scott • talk 10:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for everything you've done here. Best. Acalamari 10:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin rights removal

I've been an admin since before there was RfA but haven't done any admin work in ages. If anything my admin status here tends to contribute to confusion since this is also (currently) my Wikimedia Foundation staff account. So I'd like to request that my admin status be removed. Thanks, --Eloquence* 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for your past administrative contributions. –xenotalk 15:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Eh. Looks kinda silly with AFT disabled, I guess. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there is more here than meets the eye, but shouldn't he be granted/retain template editor rights?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure he can request whatever permissions he really needs. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, since this was done during a RfArb about (amongst other things) some of his actions, I suppose this is considered as being a resignation "under a cloud"? Just to make sure what to expect if he would change his mind some months from now and asks to get the rights again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be considered "under a cloud", but since there was never a first RfA, I'm pretty sure he is not eligible for restoration on-demand and will need a brand new RfA should he wish to be resysopped. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to punt too hard on this, but decisions about cloudiness (or about RfAs or lack thereof) are made at the time of the request for re-sysop, not now. Working ourselves into a lather about something that might never happen seems pretty silly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI, the Arbitration Committee is considering motions that would require an RfA prior to any return of the tools. –xenotalk 10:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Desysop request

Please remove the admin user right from my account. I don't want to be in the same elevated rank with dishonest manipulators, such as (Redacted). I'll try to continue as an ordinary editor (I still consider myself one), although I've lost my trust in Wikipedia as a project that can recognize between good and bad, or at least search for honest answers. No, Wikipedia is deaf and helpless. Good luck with your nice and polite cheaters. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel that way, but nevertheless, I have  Done this request. Thank you for your service as an administrator. Acalamari 08:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I'm a happy man:) Thank you, Acalamari. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
... and what action is being taken on the violations of WP:NPA? the panda ₯’ 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I've redacted the username, per WP:NPA. Any further action would presumably need you to request arbcom to revoke his admin rights, retrospectively, perhaps? Or you could give him a warning on his talk page. But either of those options might be silly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Global rename

I have added a new link to Template:Renameuser2 (the "For global renamer use: rename user") that permits Stewards (and maybe global renamers, if they are created) to do global renames. While en.wiki crats still have the technical power to do renames, we should defer to Stewards in cases where a user has a significant number of accounts or edits on other projects and there are no local accounts with the new username (i.e., a French user who has not already moved his old fr.wiki name to the new name). MBisanz talk 00:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It is suboptimal that global renames don't also reflect in the local log. While it's a global action, it creates changes to each project individually and should be replicated in the local logs as well as the global log on meta. –xenotalk 13:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • MBisanz, I was with you until the "other projects". "and there are no local accounts with the new username" doesn't make sense to me. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The global rename facility cannot change to a name that exists anywhere on another project. They must be usurped locally and unified as before. –xenotalk 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Still confused. That implies that the word "except" is missing somewhere. --Dweller (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Corect. "Consider referring to stewards if user has significant accounts/edits on other projects except if the requested name exists on another project" (in which case we should consider fulfilling locally because a global rename won't work anyway). –xenotalk 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the confusion! MBisanz talk 22:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
        • This is because the global rename function was designed to be used after the finalisation, when by definition the target name will either be taken globally or not at all. Scoping the tool as such allowed us to finish it sooner then move onto other SUL-related work faster. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Xeno, can you translate that for me? --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • When a global rename is completed, there is no local log showing the transition from the old name to the new name on en.wiki. –xenotalk 16:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
        • If a local userpage was present, the move would appear in the local move log. --Glaisher (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Monitoring the rename log isn't ideal in the long-term, especially since not everyone who requests a rename has a userpage or subpages; also, it would be difficult to track user renames in the move log due to all the non-rename-related moves that occur every day. I agree with Xeno that in addition to global renames showing up in the global rename log, it would be useful for the local rename of any global renames to be recorded here. Acalamari 16:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We should also inform users that their rename may be completed globally when filing at CHUS, in case there is some reason the user only wants to be renamed locally they should indicate such in their request. –xenotalk 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    Note: Even if they change their mind, stewards will soon be able to merge two global accounts, see mw:SUL finalisation/Global account merge. Otherwise, I would not recommend to split up global accounts because, as we all know, people easily change their minds. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:VANISH

Will rename requests on en: related to WP:VANISH be handled via global rename as well now? — xaosflux Talk 01:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

They will have to be, as local bureaucrats will no longer be able to rename accounts. This issue was raised a few weeks ago among the stewards, and the actual implementation and ramifications are still under discussion. In general, it should not be an issue to rename to a random name, and how to implement having an alternate, more private, route to request a rename is also actively being investigated/scoped out.
Among the more difficult issues that remain are what happens when a user has fallen afoul of one local project, but not others. With names being global, local policies that used to be independant may now be in conflict with each other. How this will be handled is still under discussion, and may simply resort to steward/global renamer discretion. Please take all of the above as just indications; as I said, this is still being worked out and is subject to change. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Requests that should be private should be sent to stewards@wikimedia.org though. Part of the problem is that RTV is an enwiki-only thing, for the most part. --Rschen7754 02:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Local admins will still be able to enforce local username policies if necessary also by blocks. A User:Otto Fucker might be blocked on enwiki while it's appropriate in German as a surname: de:Otto Fucker. However, I'd mostly limit username blocks to accounts with libelous or non-public information. Disruptive behavior should be stopped nonetheless, either on a local or global level. But that's my personal opinion. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a bad outcome from this policy change. I'm unhappy about this. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That may well be, but SUL is a expressed desideratum of the foundation, and is going to happen whether we like it or not. That being said, if names become global, then their handling must as well. For better of for worse, this is inevitable. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a steward. So far, I have only seen "vanishing" from remote, i.e. in Special:Log/renameuser when someone got renamed to a weird combination of letters and numbers. So, isn't "vanishing" is just a different word for "renamed to nonsensical username"? It will obviously still be possible with global renaming, so I don't understand where a problem might be. Users can even vanish more easily in the future, in that they don't have to make separate requests, should they have edited other projects, like Commons (which is probably quite likely, even if it's just a few edits). --MF-W 22:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, vanishing now will more often require vanishing on ALL projects, as usernames are global. For someone to vanish from project A and not B requires making a new global username for use in all but B. -- Avi (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, in a sense vanishing as it is now is a bit flawed, because it's more difficult to vanish when the person has edited other Wikimedia sites. Global rename gets it all, even the elusive login.wikimedia.org. --Rschen7754 02:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:VANISH redux

Continuing from the previous section, it may well be that the current WP:RTV policy may need to evolve if names are universal. For example, how should the following cases be handled on a global basis:

  • User wants to leave project "X" only, but no other projects.
  • User wants to leave project all projects but "Y".
  • User is blocked, or even banned, in project "X" but is a valued contributor in project "Y" and wants a rename.
  • User is blocked, or even banned, in project "X" but has privacy issue issue in project "Y" which a rename would help.

Briefly, once names become global, per-project policies will need to come into closer harmony. It may well be that the English Wikipedia's RTV will need to be materially changed once global names are implemented. -- Avi (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What Xeno said above implies that per-wiki renaming can be done. It would also be good to be able to un-stitch SUL, in certain circumstances, or maybe other technical fixes could be applied. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC).
02:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Per-wiki renaming can be done now, but if I've read correctly, once SUL finalization hits, it will no longer be possible. Certainly local 'crats won't be able to do it, and my impression is that it won't be doable for anyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not the SUL team's intention to leave any tools in place that can break the globalisation of an account. If we did so then we'd put ourselves in a situation where we'd potentially need to have further finalisations in successive intervals to ensure global account unity, and being forcibly renamed is such a poor user experience that we don't want to have to do another finalisation. Where possible, the SUL finalisation team is trying to build new tools that meet the same use cases as the tools that we're removing, but do it in such a way that it does not break globalisation (e.g. global account merges). That said, building a tool to support per-wiki vanishing is not on our roadmap right now. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Basically, it will no longer be possible to "vanish" from just one project; it is all or nothing. My thought is that this may require us to change the concept from "vanishing" to "scrambling" and allow people interested in starting cleanly on Wikimedia projects in toto to get their names scrambled, even if it means they are coming back. I have already raised the idea among the stewards that we might want stewards and global renamers to check if a request is coming from an obvious troll trying to evade scrutiny on his or her main home project, but there will need to be some discretion (see some of the cases I listed above). ALL individual projects are losing the ability to control their members names, and ALL projects are going to have to evolve. As a global organization, SUL is better than what we have now—not perfect, but the good outweighs the bad—and even EnWiki, the 800 pound gorilla of Wikimedia is going to have to evolve along with it . -- Avi (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I certainly think the tradeoffs will be worth it, but I am glad to hear that you do too, Avi! --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I just want to be a pain and interrupt you to ask that you don't forget User:Avi suggestion, that what you are discussing is not exactly vanishing by definition, and that changing or adding to the policy headings is a good idea if you do change or add to the policies themselves. The current policy emphasises that vanishing is a last resort that should be used to stop all editing forever from good standing. I have always sort of appreciated that ability in line with any of the long standing policy and guides on content and conduct. Vanishing is not really what you are discussing here, though similar. I don't have anything useful on the proceedure itself, sorry. Vanishing is, by definition, sudden, permanent and traceless, or, purely abstract and predictive, alike to vanishing. You'd probably have gotten to it but if you didn't, the sky might have fallen down apparently. ~ R.T.G 05:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
So, are we still honoring valid courtesy vanishing requests, or should we just refer people to the stewards for assistance from now on? There are several vanishing requests which have not yet been handled, so I want to know before I go and grant them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that this may be an appropriate time to discuss whether WP:VANISH should remain policy anyway. Aside from the "complication" of global account renaming and so on, really it's always been a badly misunderstood and misused process, often used to separate an existing user from a previous account that was created because of harassment (definitely not a policy-based vanishing), and a phenomenal number of editors return, often under other guises. Bottom line: you want to leave, there's the door, scramble your password on the way out and unlink your email address if you're completely certain. I think we may have grown up enough as a community to realise that the vast majority of essays from meatball wiki were never really intended to be policy for a site with over a million accounts and 30,000 active users. Risker (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I do think we should have some form of graceful exit; people make mistakes, or simply mature over time. Especially now that a name change is a dramatic step, as it means changing one's entire wikimedia identity, we should allow someone to scramble their old name and come back. We should engage the stewards and global renamers when we think someone is doing so to evade scrutiny. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


An important message about renaming users

copied from user talk:Xeno

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Usurpation under new system

There doesn't appear to have been much discussion about how usurpations are going to work in this new system, or if they will even still be offered. See: meta:Talk:Global renamers#Usurpation of accounts –xenotalk 20:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, we haven't had global usurpation requests but we're currently discussing this issue, thanks for pointing us on this! Recommendations, suggestions, or any feedback is highly appreciated. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For reasons other than SUL/Unification and impersonation issues .What is the need to allow users to Usurp others accounts in most cases where an editor has stopped editing.A large number of requests are simply I like the other username more than mine.You can simply ask them to choose a new username.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    Because granting a long-unused but desirable name to a volunteer makes them happier and potentially more productive. –xenotalk 12:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore sysop rights request

Bmicomp (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

I requested my admin rights to be removed in January 2006 due to not having enough time to dedicated to the project. Now having more time, I request to have these privileges restored. BMIComp (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Save for a handful of edits, you've been virtually inactive for nearly 8 years. Have you kept up or refreshed yourself with changes to policies, guidelines, approaches to administration?
How can we be sure your account has not been compromised? –xenotalk 10:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Although this request meets the definition of activity, there is no three year period completely inactive, 6 edits in 8 years certainly does meet the spirit of inactivety. I certainly would recommend that you spend a little time editing actively to re-familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and fresh approaches. WormTT(talk) 11:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Related logs for anyone wandering by:
RFA:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bmicomp granted Desysop request on meta local confirmation removed 2006-01-24
— xaosflux Talk 11:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore sysop rights request (Bmicomp)

Comment If the admin asked to be desysopped in 2006 and has barely maintained the activity levels necessary to not fall under the explicit auto-desysop routines, I request that the Bureaucrats express their discretion and request a new RfA prior to resysopping to both re-confirm the understanding of current operating procedure by Bmicomp and for the community at large to have the opportunity to weigh in on giving the rights back. Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Catch 22, as he meets the technical requirements, if you look only at the letter and not the spirit of the policy. Exactly the kind of case Crats hate. All the active Crats could simply state they aren't willing to resysop, without making an actual determination as to validity of the request or not, as no one can compel any individual Crat to act. Adding it back would definitely set a precedent that ANY edits, even ones like this, are sufficient to maintain "active" status. To get to where you have two article edits in a single year, you have to go back to 2006 (exactly two), then 2005 to see the rest. If I were a Crat (and I have zero desire), there is no way I would push the button, and would opt out instead. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
We see here often the exclamation that crats are duty bound to follow existing policy to the letter, absolving them of any judgement calls, but this seems an appropriate use of IAR/COMMONSENSE if nothing else. benmoore 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand, this has the appearance of a 'letter-versus-spirit' situation. From September 2006 to September 2012 – 6 years – Bmicomp made just 4 edits: 2 in February 2009, and 2 in February 2011. All four edits were minor changes to his user page (adding or modifying a couple of external links to family websites). Since 2006, his only 2 edits outside userspace were to add an entry to List of breweries in Illinois for a microbrewery with which he has a connection. While I have no reason to believe that he's not a good guy, or that he would misuse the tools, he also hasn't been engaged with Wikipedia's culture or policies. (What year did we start allowing non-admins access to the Rollback right? When did discretionary sanctions become a thing?) His last period of sustained activity, and his last use of admin tools, was in 2005. His only edits this year have been to make a couple more minor changes to his user page, and to request his tools back.
On the other hand, if the guy hadn't voluntarily relinquished his tools in 2006, he would still have them today, simply by virtue of maintaining a (very) minimal but (technically) sufficient level of activity. The tools weren't resigned 'under a cloud', and it's pretty obvious that he hasn't done anything controversial in the meantime. We wouldn't be having this discussion, and he'd already be able to use the tools. If he starts using them tomorrow and starts screwing up, he's going to get an earfull very quickly. (And a desysop by motion soon after.) Asking the bureaucrats to reject this request – for tools to which Bmicomp is entitled under existing policy – is asking the bureaucrats to unilaterally expand their own role into judging and administering desysoppings. This is not a power that the community has granted them. One of the reasons why 'crats are generally trusted is because they have historically resisted any temptation to 'mission creep'.
On the third hand, we could have the messy situation where no 'crat actually makes a formal decision. (That is, some time goes by and no 'crat comments, or all the 'crats say "I don't care what you guys decide, but I'm not comfortable making this call.") Do the 'crats have the option of using a pocket veto? Is that an option that we are comfortable with ceding to them? (Can the 'crats, as a body, choose to opt out of other 'difficult' calls?) Presumably, the whole thing ends up at ArbCom—the one body on Wikipedia that does have formal jurisdiction over decisions to desysop.
And on the backhand, it's too late for this to help, but dang it Bmicomp—you could have saved yourself a load of trouble if you had shown that you really were active again for a few weeks before making your request. Showing the community that you're engaged with the project is a heck of a lot more potent than telling the community that you plan to be...sometime...in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With respect TenOfAllTrades Crats are given the latitude to act on the will of the community. As evidenced by RfA Crats must satisfy a minimum percentage before a discussion could begin to be discussed by Crats for closure and can straight close in cases of obvious consensus. The Resysop has the option for a user to raise a concern, and a concern has been raised (per WP:RESYSOP Point 3). I claim that their minimal activity is sufficent to question if they are sufficently up to speed with all the changes that have occured since they handed over the mop closet keys as many actions from 2006 would be straight up out of order now. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason we are having this discussion is that discussion like this are often what policy changes are based on, and the discussion often helps us discover if a change is needed...or not. And yes, what you are calling a "pocket veto", the Crats can do. No editor at Wikipedia can be compelled to edit or use any tools. Admin do this all the time, walking past issues to let someone else deal with it, and if no one will, it gets left as is. Crats have the same right to refuse. And it won't end at Arbcom, they don't have the authority to force a Crat either. I'm pretty sure they would decline to even hear it, as it isn't about desysoping, but resysoping (ie: there is no abuse claimed by any party). Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
One more point, this "pocket veto" isn't a consensus, it would actually be unanimous consent to do nothing. This wouldn't setting a precedent as only actions can create precedents. They always have had the right to do nothing, this would just be the first time that I know of that they exercised it. If he came back and requested again after 6 months of editing semi-regularly, I don't think anyone would really worry about him getting the bit back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, Hasteur, the intent of point #3 isn't to allow us to invent additional conditions for resysopping requests. It merely specifies a minimum waiting period – and conditions under which that waiting time should be extended – to allow 'crats to confirm that the other conditions (points #1, confirmation of identity; and #2, no resignation to evade scrutiny) have been met. There is no 'sufficiently up to speed' test specified. The text at WP:ADMIN#Restoration of adminship supports this reading, as does the original discussion which established the 3-year rule: Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 13#Restoration of the tools (proposal). (In particular, the 24-hour waiting period was explicitly created to allow for exploration of whether or not a resignation was 'under a cloud'.) Point #3 allows 'crats to extend the discussion period for a resysopping, but it is not intended to be used to filibuster indefinitely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Disrespectfully ToaT, Point 3 is to allow for the community to express concern at a previous administrator regaining their prigileges. I am expressing a concern that 8 years without privileges and without contributing significantly is more than sufficent grounds for holding back the back room resysop. I'd be putting up the same argument to any ex-admin who is seeking privilege restoration after a non-trivial absence. Bmicomp has barely met the threshold from having the shortcut path barred and I can think of several policies that I'd like to hear them confirm that they understand prior to being handed the keys to the NOC for enWP. If they had come back and done some non-trivial work (Content ceration, Participated in some AFDs, Participated in AfC or page patrol, Participated in a AN* report) I'd be expressing less opposition, but we already have plenty of admins and plenty of admins who do very little adminning, so why do we need one who gave up the tools in the past with no clear indication of why the need tools again. Hasteur (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No need to shoot the messenger, Hasteur. All I'm saying is that – if you read the discussions that I linked for you – you'll find that there is a discrepancy between what you, personally, would prefer the policy to be, and what the community actually discussed and agreed to. Feel free to make your best case that the policy should be changed, or that this situation is sufficiently unusual that the 'crats should ignore the established policy in this instance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Have we considered the possibility that userspace edits shouldn't count as "activity" for this (or any other) purpose? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It seems reasonable to me to not count userspace edits as activity. That said, it's bad practice and quite unfair to change the rules as a result of a good faith request, then seek to apply that rule change retroactively against the request. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bmicomp I trust this admin to read and understand modern versions of policies before taking action. I was just away for 3 years and it was not hard to catch up, 8 years will be harder but the community has already demonstrated trust in this person to have good judgment.

I recognize many of the names from his RfA and I have the utmost respect for those who supported BMI for admin. Given that he meets the technical requirements I see no reason for the crats to make a special case out of this. Chillum 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore sysop rights request (Bmicomp) - withdrawn

Honestly, I (naively) did not anticipate controversy when I made this request. I can appreciate the concerns voiced and would prefer not to make this into a big dispute. If it appeases those that have raised an issue, I'll rescind this request for now and continue to work on Wikipedia as an editor. If in the future I find that I would be able to contribute to Wikipedia in a more significant manner having administrator privileges, I will submit a request here at that time. There's no need to set precedent here. BMIComp (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and willingness to volunteer as administrator once again. –xenotalk 20:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
... or perhaps more importantly as an editor. Eric Corbett 22:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving forwards - community guidance on RESYSOP

This request having been withdrawn, there is now nothing for us to action/not action. However, I would encourage the community to have a further discussion to establish a consensus about whether any amendments/clarifications of the restoration of admin rights policy are needed. Particular matters that could be the subject of amendment/clarification include:

  1. Should bureaucrats exercise any discretion where there has been some (but only minimal) activity since a desysop?
  2. Should edits to all namespaces (including, e.g., user:/user talk:) count as activity?
  3. Should edits made with alternative accounts be counted?

Absent further guidance, for my part I believe our instructions relating to the above are: (i) no, (ii) yes, (iii) yes. WJBscribe (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • My responses are Yes, perhaps, yes. It dpeends on which namespaces are being edited. If the user is mucking around in their userspace, I'd say no. But if they are participating in in AfDs/Policy discussions then I'd count that for credit. I'd really prefer the buerecrats (as the supreme guardians of evaluating consensus) to exercise discretion when a resysop is requested and absent the user being significantly involved in discussions/policy knowledge so we don't have a "Back in my day we did it this way" situation with a cowboy admin dispensing sanctions acording to a ruberic that has long since fallen out of common use. Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with (i) no, because I would favor these matters be decided upon by the community in the wording of the resysopping policy rather than left as burden of judgement for individual bureaucrats. As for (ii), I don't think userspace edits, or at the very least userpage edits, should count as activity. Usertalk edits shows involvement in discussions, and misc. userspace edits, on drafts for example, shows there is still content work despite being out of mainspace, but a userpage is by most definitions outside of the scope of "contributing to Wikipedia". I remain undecided about (iii), I would generally be in favor of counting edits by the editor, not by the account, but I seem to recall that historically, the community has preferred that userrights be separated explicitly by account, and not by user, and that, for example, an editor succeeding at RfA doesn't have the right to the sysop bit on alternative accounts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think WJBscribe is spot on as far as current reading of policy. The key is to not change the Crat role into something it currently is not. We need a little nuance that allows using common sense, but not broad new powers, as Crats have virtually no oversight and there is no way for the editor to appeal, sans a new RFA. Arb can't force their hand. I doubt anyone is worried about abuse as Crats tend to be our more level headed editors, but I'm guessing even they would agree with caution in granting authority here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Common sense is needed for tricky cases—yes to #1. The alternative would be to replace crats with a webpage which runs an automated test and grants approval if all the boxes are ticked. For #2, I guess there may be exceptions but one thing highlighted by this case is that succesful edits to articles shows much higher engagement than edits in other spaces, and competent editing is at least some reassurance that the person applying is not someone who picked up the password from a secondhand computer. For #3, no. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say yes to 1 easily, and I'm undecided on two and three. Crats are trusted by the community, and for borderline cases it would be silly for us not to use some discretion one way or the other. If every case was black and white there would be no need for the userright. Wizardman 11:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also say YES to #1, it meets with the level of responsibility and trust we accorded them when we elected them to office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say yes to #1, at least in a limited manner, there are always going to be cases at the margin. Much as we expect there to be a narrow window of "discretion" in closing RfAs, I see the value in a narrow window here as well. (No particular view on 2, more "it depends", and I'd lean #3 yes, don't see contributions to the encyclopedia, or even admin-related tasks, as any less meaningful because of some bit being on at that precise moment in time.) --j⚛e deckertalk 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • RFA is a pretty good comparison. I think if the wording of policy was "more than trivial editing for 3 years", and let the Crats decide what "trivial" means, we would be pretty safe. At first glance, that seems the simplest solution, and allows for "trivial" to adjust some over time based on consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The crats are the among the most trusted editors on the wiki, I have complete faith in any one of them to determine whether someone has been inactive or active over a period of time without any new hard and fast rules about namespaces or edit counts. It's counter-intuitive that a group of editors that have gone through such scrutiny at RfB then say they're the only people on WP who have zero leeway and thus resysop could be automated. benmoore 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever decision is made regarding changing practice I don't think it should retroactively apply to Bmicomp. I don't think anyone has suggested that we should, but I figured it worth mentioning anyways. Chillum 17:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, put down the hatchet. Bmicomp withdrew their request. Your hatchet job about the community coming to its senses at [13] is bad faith and just plain rude to those of us who expressed concern at an ex-admin walking in from the cold asking for their privileges back. This discussion is to help tailor the policy that will be applied going for all resysop requests to indicate that the 'crats have the discretion to determine if the ex-admin requesting their privileges back is sufficiently up to speed with the current operating practices prior to getting the privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 August 2014‎ (UTC)
Accusing me of bad faith while characterizing my attempt to console a fellow editor as some sort of hatchet job is really rich. I want you to read what you wrote and consider that you are out of line. No need for all of the spite.
My only point was that an editor who was told he should come back after some weeks of activity and gracefully withdraws his request to do so should not have the standards changed from under him. While I agree we can alter policy I don't it is reasonable to make it retroactive. Chillum 20:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
So you deny that your commentary in the diff that I highlighted is bad faith bordering on a personal attack, since you implied that I (and those who expressed concern) were not in control of our senses. If the standard operating procedure on wikipedia is to undermine consensus by backroom canvassing then I'll remember that the next time I get backed into a corner and implement from your playbook because it's apparently just fine for admins to undermine and demean community members. Next time that an ex-admin request a resysop the policy will be in place for the crats to exercise discretion. When the editor in question asks again, we'll consider the request in light of the current operating procedure. Hasteur (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If you want to talk about this then go to my talk page or ping me from your talk page, and I can deny it there. This is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Chillum 05:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you both to take a step back and relax, here. Chillum has made his point, so let's leave it at that, and keep the conversation here tightly scoped to the matter that WJBscribe raised. Thanks to you both for your help doing that. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 05:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If discretion means having a crat-chat in borderline cases, then there should be no issue. Yet, there's a caveat. A past administrator whose tools were withdrawn in uncontroversial circumstances, and whose request to have them back is not entertained by a crat/crat-chat due to minimal activity, can be simply requested to edit across the project for a few handful of months and then given the tools back once the editor re-applies. I believe if the above mentioned editor had applied after having edited for say three months, none of the crats would be having this discussion that's been initiated out here. Wifione Message 06:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My request above sparked this whole discussion. Since this discussion is still evolving, I'd like to add some information that may help give some clarification.. which may be helpful for this policy discussion. I have still been editing Wikipedia since I voluntarily desysoped due to having little time to fulfill my administrator duties. Many of my edits have been incidental. Reading articles and notice a typo or something that needs to be fixed... I'd fix it.. as I value Wikipedia and believe in doing my part to improve it. However, these edits were always performed while not logged in. The only reason I logged in to edit my user pages, is so that it would be clear that it was not vandalism. BMIComp 11:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins for September 2014

Resolved

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 02:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that Cecropia's a bureaucrat, so someone will have to send a request to the stewards to change that right. Wizardman 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Preferably a bureaucrat, since that is technically what the policy says (and stewards have been known to ask for a crat to verify the request, so that saves time) --Rschen7754 03:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks to all for their contributions to Wikipedia. A special thank you from me to Cecropia, who has at several points in this project's history been the linchpin of the bureaucrat team. I miss having you around.
Please could someone update the administrator lists accordingly? WJBscribe (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Graham. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Cecropia Begs an Indulgence

I'm back! Thanks, Will for the very kind words. Seems I have popped up two days after my untimely demise. To save you the trouble of listening to another long harangue from me, please see my comments on the above topic. With affection to all and to the Wikipedia which I see is much better than when I went part-time, Cheers! --- Cecropia (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could expand on that latter point for the WP:SIGNPOST in an interview or op-ed sort of thing? The Signpost is very short-staffed at the moment for various reasons, and it sometimes feels like parts of the reportage are "Andreas writes about Andrew writing about Andreas' opinions that cited Andrew" (OK I don't think it's literally got to that extreme in any specific case yet, and Andreas' pieces manage some admirable neutrality sometimes... but even so, it's occasionally rather glaring.) It could be an interesting counter-point to more negative commentary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I will look into that, Demiurge. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back! I still remember the amusing note you sent me when you promoted me to adminship back in the day. However, you seem to have signed all your messages with three tildes, rather than four, which is the standard here; I've fixed it in this discussion, but just sayin'. Graham87 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh. It's been seven years? Time does fly and somewhere in the dust I must have dropped a tilde. Got to brush up on some stuff and many thanks for the note and the poke. -- Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

desysop

I'm turning in my mop. I don't want it anymore. It used to be fun but it no longer is... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for all your work as an administrator. Acalamari 11:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
So sorry to hear this--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
:( All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Decrat

Hey, all, I wasn't going to post anything here, as this isn't really a thing I wanted to make a fuss over. But Dweller asked me to put something up here, and I guess it makes sense. Anyway, I resigned my 'crat bit today. It's nothing dramatic, really; I'm not using the 'crat bit for much of anything these days, and once the 15th rolls around, it'll be even less likely. Closing RfAs sucks, and I hate it, and I don't want to do it anymore, so without renaming, there's not much left to do. So, I figure there's no point in having a tool I don't use. I have to admit, resigning this particular bit did cause a little pang, which is all the more reason it should be given up, really; I strongly believe that tools like these are just that: tools. They're not positions of authority for me to preserve and defend to the death. After all, you don't get emotionally attached to a wrench, nor do you have second thoughts about putting it back in the attic.

Handsome crat fez

As I said in my RfB, I won't ask for reinstatement of 'cratship without another RfB, and I'm going to hold myself to that. I doubt it'll come up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to lose you as a 'crat, WK. You were a good one, and your sensible commentary has impressed me on many occasions. 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've always wanted to be a bureaucrat purely in the sense that it's a great title. ("So, you edit Wikipedia? What do you do there?" — "I'm a bureaucrat". Listen to the stunned silence.) And the crat fez is prettier than the rather ordinary-looking admin fez, too. But I can't say I'd like to have to do any of the bureaucrat tasks. Welcome back to middle management, Writ Keeper. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Cecropia returns

Hi, everyone! Yes, it's me, Cecropia. I seem to have popped up again just two days after Will sent me a notice that I have de-bureaucratized. To fill you in briefly, six years ago I went on hiatus for "personal reasons"; the reason being that after a short retirement I had to go back to work full-time, which I am still doing. Yes, someone once referred to me as "Old Man Cecropia"--it was in reference to my having posted information about Death Cab for Cutie and I was referring to the Bonzo Dog song, not the current band. And anyway, I am somewhat old, especially for a moth--but I'm still flapping. I hadn't posted lately because I forgot my password and since the email address I used is no longer current, I considered getting in touch with some of the other olde bureaucrats, but I decided to try to try just about every password I've used, and I finally hit it on about the 10th try and a lot of typing in bizarre words to prove I'm not a bot.
Anyway, special thanks to Will for the very special and very kind words. It's wonderful to be remembered well after so many years. Now, please let me know what I need to do to regain the esteemed and honorable title of Bureaucrat. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a formal request to regain the tools. We wait 24 hours before restoring them, in case someone wishes to present reasons that they should not be returned. Please clarify if you'd like admin rights returned, too. Great to have you back. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dweller. I can't imagine Bureaucrat rights without Admin rights; so yes, please. -- Cecropia (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. I've returned the (briefly) removed permissions. WJBscribe (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Will! -- Cecropia (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back! --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome! Please get to work - we have backlogs! Just kidding, go pay the bills, and do so knowing that you have a few extra bits in the user roles table. Andrevan@ 07:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Andrevan, I really do want to resume duties; I know a lot of water has gone under the bridge (and over the flood gates) so I'll be looking at where policy has gone since I last helped tend the ol' Wikifarm. -- Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The biggest recent change for 'crats is that Special:RenameUser has been taken away. In order to process renames, it needs to be done globally, so if that's something you're interested in, you can request the Global Renamer flag here. 28bytes (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Usurpations of usernames changing or going away 15 September 2014

information Note: Due to the local rename facility being removed from the bureaucrat usergroup, the ability for bureaucrats to execute a "WP:USURP" of a local unattached account will be going away 15 September 2014.

Perhaps stewards will still process requests if it meets local criteria in the interim until accounts are fully globalized. It is presently unclear what the global usurpation policy will look like post-SUL finalization.

If you had been considering usurping a local username, you must file a request immediately in order to be given consideration before requests can no longer be processed locally. –xenotalk 21:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we put some type of note at the top of WP:CHUU that people should go to meta:SRUC from now on? MBisanz talk 01:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Stewards might not know our guidelines on granting usurpation requests so it's probably best if we just proxy requests over until finalization happens and our global renamers can handle it. –xenotalk 01:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be entirely acceptable for bureaucrats to continue to handle the usurpation requests, getting stewards to perform the technical actions as needed. Just ping us on IRC or use the m:SRM page; whichever is more convenient. Hopefully finalization will follow in short order so this is no longer a problem :) Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
So, errrr....do we have an unblock accept template that needs to be modified? the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, considering that an unblock on en is now irrelevant to a name change, it's probably more than the accept template that should be changed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Users can still request renaming at the usual venues, it will simply be performed by a bureaucrat who is a global renamer. Blocked users could, of course, request renaming at m:SRUC while blocked here, but having enforcement send users to a different project that isn't as familiar with local username policies isn't a good idea, so I wouldn't recommend putting such advice in the template. –xenotalk 18:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:VANISH request (possible)

Resolved

A blocked user [14] appears to be requesting to WP:VANISH. He hasn't worded it that way but that is clearly his implication. His username appears to be his legal name, which he doesn't want associated with his blocked WP account. DocumentError (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The user could request a global rename at m:SRUC to clarify their intentions. –xenotalk 20:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This (former) editor has had enough trouble with our processes without our asking him to go to another website to request a rename. I understand there have recently been changes, but isn't there an easier way to get this done? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll take care of it. 28bytes (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remove admin rights from me

I wish to have my administrator rights removed, on the basis that I abused the position and its authority on several occasions in the past, and also that I have been inactive recently. You may if you wish verify this request by emailing ... and/or ... . Thank you. Dcoetzee 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. Acalamari 07:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've redacted the e-mail addresses to prevent spam-harvesting (they are visible in the history). I must say that something strikes me as very odd in the wording of this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It is strange, but if the account is compromised then the rights should be removed anyway... Also see: meta:Steward requests/Permissions#[email protected], [email protected] –xenotalk 11:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm, from a technical standpoint, the account does not appear compromised. Tiptoety talk 23:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Then again, if there has really been abuse, it may be worth looking into, even if the uuer has resigned. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a fishing expedition is wise. He has resigned; digging around and making claims to further punish him serves no higher purpose. Dennis 2¢ 13:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, usually if someone admits to a history of doing things very wrong (though I'm thinking mostly of repeated-copyvio-type things here; don't know that I've ever seen it in an admin context), we expect them to either go back and fix the problems they created or, failing that, provide us with enough information about the problems that we can go back and fix them. Not doing either of those things - or even the person not participating in the cleanup - has even led to blocks in some cases. Whether that's something that can be done in this case would depend on what kind of "abuse" Dcoetzee is talking about; if it were bullying other users "because I'm an admin", for example, that isn't something we can go back and fix now, but if it were deleting articles that shouldn't have been deleted, that's something that we can fix retroactively and that I think he'd owe us the information about. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
And he has already indicated he doesn't want to talk about it publicly in the link above [15], so starting a public fishing expedition here isn't helpful. If someone wants to email him, they of course can. For all we know, this resignation could be part of a deal, but it is best to not jump to conclusions. Dennis 2¢ 14:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Dcoetzee was hardly the world's busiest admin anyway so I doubt there is a mass of "abuse" out there waiting to be fixed. As "abuse" could mean all sorts of things that aren't logged (e.g., viewing deleted revisions and telling your friends about them; implying to new editors that you have "authority" by being an admin) a fishing expedition would probably turn up nothing or only things that have already been resolved. Doesn't really seem worth the effort. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we transition the rename process to m:SRUC?

See recent BN archives for background reading on global renames.

Now that the meta:global renamers group has been created, several global renamers who are not local bureaucrats have (in good faith) taken to fulfilling requests at the local process page (see meta:Special:Log/gblrename). As this creates an additional dynamic on the process page of local bureaucrats having to verify requests fulfilled by non-bureaucrats for adherence to local policies and guidelines, perhaps it is time to consider transitioning renames to the meta rename process page.

At m:SRUC, stewards and global renamers will endeavour to consider local policies, but ultimately renames would be conducted according to the proposed meta:Global rename policy.

Benefits include increased volunteer coverage which would result in faster response time; users blocked for usernames can request renaming while blocked; also, streamlining for the global username process is in the works and updating our pointers to the central location sooner rather than later may be worthwhile. And since local renames can no longer be performed by bureaucrats, this would put still-needed local requests in front of Stewards faster.

Some tradeoffs to consider are the further loss of local control over target usernames, that the local process page would no longer serve as a check-and-balance with respect to local username enforcement, and that sending users to another project to request a rename may cause confusion and create an additional barrier to retention of (especially newer) users.

Thoughts? –xenotalk 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Streamlining and progress is usually a good thing, we'll see. My only opposition will be all the new names that will not comply to the local policy, which I'm going to assume will still be enforced to some level. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you know if there are any plans to implement a clerking bot on meta similar to what Legobot does locally? 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't, but such would be useful indeed. –xenotalk 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Per Mlpearc. As long as requests still conform to our local username policy, then we don't need a barrage of admins soft-blocking inappropriate usernames. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
So when SUL finalization happens there would be a barrage of admins soft-blocking inappropriate usernames here? --Glaisher (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
We can route requests through the ACC interface Mlpearc (open channel) 23:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins for October 2014

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 11:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Permissions removed by myself and Acalamari. Thanks to the admins in question for their service. WormTT(talk) 11:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I've left the standard note on all of their talk pages. While it's a loss for all of them to have their tools removed, I am saddened about Hmwith, as I co-nominated her for adminship. Acalamari 11:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:-( There's a few names on that list that make me feel much the same way (including Hmwith). Do not want. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi,

My admin rights were removed because I was inactive for over a year. I probably won't be very active in the foreseeable future, but I will chip in when I have time. I could use my admin rights to help out with the DYK section of the main page, which I used to do on a regular basis. So, if you want to restore my admin rights for that, I'll help out every once in a while. If not, no biggie.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick scan doesn't highlight any issues, I'll restore in 24 hours per procedure unless any are raised. WormTT(talk) 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: (or any other 'crat who's listening) <poke> ... the twenty-four hours are up now! It's just that I wanted to wait until this request was fulfilled before updating Wikipedia:Former administrators. Graham87 05:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh sod, I totally forgot! Thanks Graham. Carabinieri, I've restored your sysop flag. Welcome back! WormTT(talk) 06:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User:El_C resysop (preemptive (for once!))

Resolved
 – No action required.

Greetings, Wikipedia bureaucrats. As mentioned on prior occasions, I still do not rule out returning to an editorial and/or administrative role; but in the meantime, use of my admin tools aids in my research (access to deleted content, and so on). Needless to say, I remain trustworthy——among chipmunks, too! (A preemptive note (for once!)) Many thanks and best wishes, El_C 21:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you've edited, you are no longer in peril of desysopping. Best regards, –xenotalk 23:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

PA in username

Resolved

Should (username removed - Courcelles) hardblocked account be vanished or otherwise renamed to hide the personal attack? JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • We wouldn't necessarily RevDel an edit that had that info, just a first name, although we would obviously revert it. (I note you did RevDel his one contrib, an obvious correct choice given the content.) I would think a vanishing isn't really required here, but I really have no idea and curious how this plays out. Dennis 2¢ 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Renaming the user away would just mean they could re-register the abusive name. –xenotalk 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
    • An oversight block might be another option here, which hides the username from edit histories and public lists while still leaving the account blocked. --Rschen7754 01:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Which I've now done, and removed the username from this thread. Courcelles 03:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Not disagreeing with the actions on this case at all, but there's nothing in Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames that indicates attack names should be hidden. Any admin who's blocked a fair number of vandals in his time would have a string of attack names somewhere in the logs. I know I've got a few. Stephen 03:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

please resysop me

Resolved
 – No action required. –xenotalk 11:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting as per policy, I had no infractions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexor (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2014‎ (UTC)

lexor (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

At least according to navigation popups and the user rights log, you appear to still be a sysop. (Non-bureaucrat comment) Dustin (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
According to the rights log your admin rights were removed 2 December 2011 and restored 15 December 2011. You have been an admin since. GB fan 01:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Rename Attack Account

Blocked but could someone rename this account to something neutral? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Was handled otherwise (not by me). Please address future requests to the oversight list, or to stewards (bureaucrats can't even rename anymore). --Rschen7754 17:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

CU bits

Resolved
 – Done elsewhere.

Please remove my Checkuser permission. In nearly 11 months on ArbCom, I have not had occasion to use it a single time, so I just don't think I need it. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Isn't the whole point of having it, is having it just in case you need it? No one expects Arbs to do regular CU duty (although some do help out) but how do you know you won't need it next week? Dennis 2¢ 01:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I am also suddenly thinking that I actually have to ask for this from the stewards at meta. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't want to labor that point, and was more curious as to motivation. Arbs are kind of expected to have the bit just in case. I've never seen one dump a useful bit before. Dennis 2¢ 01:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
To answer your actual question, I have never actually learned how to use it and the committee this year is stacked with more tech-savvy arbs who run any checks we need and double check each other's work. I don't like having such a powerful tool just sitting there waiting to be clicked on by accident. As a matter of fact Floquenbeam never had it turned on to begin with, but then again he also eventually decided he was unsuitable for the entire role of being an arb... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
(ears burning) I did actually have CU rights for a while, but gave them up a month or two before resigning, without ever using them. Not so much because I was worried I might use them by accident, but because it meant people assumed I actually knew how to use them, and would ask me to run checks. Or a couple of times when I blocked an obvious sock, it would be recorded as a CU block, when all it really was was my sense of smell. And yes, you have to ask at Meta. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_30&oldid=1083281505"