Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Crat tasks
USURP reqs 8
CHU reqs 21
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 8
Approved BRFAs 0


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 20:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I NotifyOnline


Crystal Clear app kalarm.svg It is 12:55:43 on August 27, 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 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[edit]

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[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)
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[edit]

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!

  • Copied here from my talk page. –xenotalk 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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 accountsxenotalk 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)

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)
  • 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)

Done[edit]

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)

Desysop request[edit]

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 Yes check.svg 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)

Restore sysop rights request[edit]

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)
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)