Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:BN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Crat tasks
USURP reqs 7
CHU reqs 5
RfAs 1
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
Approved BRFAs 0

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Dodger67 40 8 5 83 16:40, 27 August 2014 4 days, 19 hours
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 20:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Crystal Clear app kalarm.svg It is 20:55:56 on August 22, 2014, according to the server's time and date.

Global rename[edit]

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 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 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 –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)


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 though. Part of the problem is that RTV is an enwiki-only thing, for the most part. --Rschen7754 02:29, 19 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 --Rschen7754 02:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:VANISH redux[edit]

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 Farmbrough02:32, 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 Face-smile.svg. -- Avi (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin rights removal[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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

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