Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 11:18:38 on May 14, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

WP:RIP guidelines

It was suggested that a notice be placed here regarding a current discussion. Given the sobriety of the topic, I agree. We currently have a discussion underway to establish (what looks like "guidelines" at the moment) for how the passing of community members should be handled. I think it's probably best if a Bureaucrat close the matter when the time comes. I'm guessing on this one, but maybe 5-7 days total? The discussion is at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians Thank You, and Kind Regards, — Ched :  ?  14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the 27th would be acceptable by the community as a closing date — Ched :  ?  09:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm...this has been running far past its scheduled close time, is anyone going to close it? Matt (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus (or lack of it) seems rather obvious for the majority of the proposals; not sure why it needs a bureaucrat to "officially" close it. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll close it then. Expect Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines to be coming up soon. bibliomaniac15 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. All closed. I've put {{proposedguideline}} on the page because there are still a few aspects of the process that I believe were not fully ironed out. bibliomaniac15 03:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good from here; nicely done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I didn't want to be pushy about it, and after asking a few of the experienced Wikipedians, I got the impression it was best to just wait things out, and let the community come to any closing decisions. Nice job on the guideline proposal Biblio, I appreciate that! I really like the way you handled the "blocking" issue. I'll be on a wiki-break for a bit, but I'll try to follow up when I get back. If one of you guys wants to go ahead and delete: User:Ched Davis/Deceased wikipedian proceedures that would be fine by me, otherwise I'll find a suitable tag for it when I get back. thx again ;) — Ched :  ?  08:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag request

Hi,

User:Citation bot seems to have had a bug where if two instances were running at once (perhaps because a user manually operated it on a page) the bot would edit the wrong page. To fix this I have had to set up multiple user accounts [ User:Citation bot 1 User:Citation bot 2 User:Citation bot 3 User:Citation bot 4], but these do not yet have bot flags. Could somebody please flag these as bots?

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Closure of EddieSegoura's ban appeal

Resolved

 – now closed by User:Kevin. –xeno ^talk 21:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

Could a bureaucrat please close this ban appeal, making a determination of whether or not it was successful please? EddieSegoura's talk page has been transcluded to allow him to comment. The transclusion probably needs removing and the content copying into the AN page to keep the AN record complete. Many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done by Ncmvocalist

I don't think Ncmvocalist is a bureaucrat? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that ban appeals could only be closed by bureaucrats. Can someone point me to the relevant policy or guideline? My understanding was that the entire remit of 'crats was the assignment of +sysop, +bot and renames of users. My further understanding is they have no special abilities in closing debates outside of RFA. Perhaps I'm in error. Pedro :  Chat  19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realised this was requested by ARBCOM Pedro :  Chat  19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow - not only did Ncmvocalist not allow a bureaucrat to close the discussion (as requested by an arbitrator in an issue forwarded by the committee), he actually participated in the discussion and opposed lifting the appeal. Then he closed it against the appeal. I think that was a poor choice - maybe it didn't effect the outcome, but I don't see the reason to skip the norm for this sort of thing. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) For the sake of good order, and noting the comments above, would an uninvolved bureaucrat please re-open the appeal and make an independent determination before reclosing it? My apologies in advance for any trouble this causes,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• *cough*WP:RFBAN*cough* MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've re-opened it. No comment about whether it should be a user, sysop, or 'crat, who closes it, but the recent tendency of involved users to close community discussions strikes me as a terrible slippery slope to descend. –xeno ^talk 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion. I was not aware of any ARBCOM request relating to the closure, however I am completely uninvolved, and would be extremely surprised if anyone else formed a different opinion as to the consensus that was formed. Kevin (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disputing the result, just the closer. Allowing an involved individual to close a discussion just because the decision is clear doesn't make it right; and it sets a bad precedent if we allow these inappropriate closures to stand. Thank you for your attention to this. –xeno ^talk 21:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever next. A recent tendency usually involves a number of weeks, not years - we're in the latter category when it comes to this practise. And as for precedent, too late - if this needs to be changed, then codify it in policy please. Either way, it seems that some people are intent on ensuring this project is entirely over-run by bureaucracy than common sense. And as for you Avruch, stop making bad faith accusations - I don't follow this noticeboard, so it wasn't a matter of "not allowing" a crat to close it. Further, community practise does not require a crat to close a discussion, whether it's about imposing a sanction or an appeal - it would be foolish to treat this case any differently, if ArbCom actually deferred this decision to the community. Why Roger Davies would go out of his way to give special treatment here in favour of bureaucracy is beyond me; it certainly does not further the core purpose of this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive if I'm being dense, but are you saying that you closed it yourself, despite your involvement, in order to make a point?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm..what? I closed it in line with the reply I gave to Carcharoth at that very discussion. I have further comments and questions for you below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was the bad faith accusation? Or any accusation at all? Perhaps you were unaware that Roger had requested a crat close the discussion, but even so closing it despite having participated (even if you thought the result was clear) wasn't the best choice. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 12:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no interest in your ongoing attempts at power grabs on the various noticeboards. if you are not an impartial party to a discussion, you should not be the one closing it. it's common sense. –xeno ^talk 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not; you're simply escalating this by making it personal - you think that's the common sense way of resolving disputes on Wikipedia? Whatever your response, all I can say is "impressive display xeno". Both you and Avruch are evading the fact you've been out of sync with community norms, and that it achieves nothing remotely productive. If you want to push for a change, do it through policy. Or are you trying to hush this up because you know there'll be a divide on who wants more red tape? What are you going to do...reopen every single one of those discussions because zomg! someone participated (or even had a different view than you) but then dared to give a neutral conclusion for the discussion, which was supported by the rest of the community? It's a number of years since multiple reports have been closed in this way with regards to editing restrictions, sanctions, bans and god knows what else...trying to push your preferred change in this way is certainly not the best choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you substantiate this claim with some examples? –xeno ^talk 14:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a handful that demonstrate such a narrow definition of involvement is not supported by practise: ban discussion with closer supporting ban and its outcome/closure; discussion with closer supporting ban and closure/outcome and outcome/closure; discussion with closer supporting ban and outcome/closure; closer proposed ban discussion with closer supporting ban and outcome/closure; discussion with closer supporting unban and closure/outcome and again, outcome/closure; discussion with closer supporting ban and outcome/closure; discussion as well as its closure/outcome and outcome/closure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. These will take some time to review these before I can comment. –xeno ^talk 18:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the note; incidentally, you'll have plenty of time as far as I'm concerned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the ban appeal one way or the other. I'll assume that you weren't aware Roger asked for a 'crat to close it, although I'm not convinced you wouldn't have closed it anyway. If there is a long-term trend of involved people closing discussions to determine the outcome, then you are absolutely right that I am out of sync with that trend. I believe that if you support or oppose an appeal (request, poll, whatever) you should not be the person to judge its outcome. While you say you are just participating in a trend that we have somehow missed, you have a history of pushing the envelope with respect to roles -- and its hard to see how this is not a continuation of that effort. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I note your opinion about involvement, but respectfully disagree in the interim. Of course, if your view was supported by policy, there would be no issue - and if you feel so strongly about it, I suggest you attempt to get it codified. Otherwise, I don't believe it is usually considered so narrowly. Yes, I wasn't aware of this noticeboard discussion. Out of curiosity, excepting this thread, was anyone from the community aware that we would be trying something so out of step with practise that a crat was going to be closing this discussion? Did the community get to discuss it? No and no. At the very least, I wonder why Roger Davies did not make an effort to leave a note of the request at the crat's noticeboard? Whatever was the cause of the omission, the outcome could not have been different. There was no justification for avoiding discussion, or not leaving a note at the discussion itself. A little more good faith would go a long way; but whether you (or whoever else) choose to assume the worst regarding my editing is quite out of my hands, so it's best I don't spend (or arguably waste) any more time on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Background: ArbCom would like to see more ban appeals handled by the community and, indeed, we have several in the pipeline. However, this does mean that they run a reasonable time and are closed impartially. The idea of bureaucrat involvement is merely to minimise the chances of a further appeal arising out of improperly handled/closed appeal.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not explain (or forgot to mention) why the community was not informed, let alone given an opportunity to comment, on this proposed substantial change to normal practice. Incidentally, I am likely to look at such a proposal favourably, but given that the decision is the community's, why unilaterally attempt to change the norms? Honestly, I'm baffled...when are ArbCom going to give me a reason to say "yes, ArbCom has improved" if the clumsy communication and stuff-ups are still on the rise and weighing down improvements in other areas? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having trouble (i) understanding why you're attaching so much importance to a request and (ii) recognising your description of the current ArbCom. I note your thunderous silence about your pointy and involved closure.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(I) I attach importance to it because the request does not have wider support as dictated by practice over the past few years. Why are you not answering my question - the one where I asked you why ArbCom did not notify or give the community a chance to discuss the idea of making a crat close a ban discussion, when it has not formally done so before?

(II) Let me put it bluntly; we elected new users (like you) to improve ArbCom. This included ensuring communication between community and ArbCom was more open and clear so the community can also voice its opinion, as well as (or so we hoped) you lot making less stuff-ups (aka rash and foolish decisions that are not supported by the community, as well as terrible case management) - you failed on both of these fronts, despite making somewhat limited progress in other areas.

(III) When I dignified your nonsensical claim with a response, you have gone ahead and ignored it or evaded its substance, and then assumed bad faith - you repeated the claim despite it being patently false. This sort of behaviour or outlook is not constructive to this project. So this is the final time I will tell you. I don't believe my closure can be considered involved as defined by practise. Your dissent was noted, but it is not supported by practise that has far outlived your (and many others) tenure in ArbCom; if you'd like to see a change to that practise, I suggest you get it written into policy. If you'd like examples of this practise where there is no narrow requirement on who closes a discussion, see my diffs in reply to xeno and Avruch. If you still fail to comprehend, it is perhaps impossible for me to try to spoonfeed this to you in any other words or plainer English. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A request is a request is a request. I personally have no problem whatsover with it being closed by a non-crat, or by a non-admin for that matter, providing they're uninvolved.

I note what you say about openness but our progress on many fronts so far has been massive. Yes, we won't get everything right first time – and yes, we'll learn by our mistakes – but a huge weatherchange has already been accomplished.

Like the others here, I disagree that the uninvolvement policy has changed. While it may not have always been strictly adherred to here in the past, that does not itself change community consensus.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

progress so far has been massive: in whose opinion - mine or yours? You have made some progress, and making some mistakes is ok - I can agree there. But good grief; making the same mistakes a previous ArbCom made is not ok, and signals that progress is being undone in other areas. Below, you've noted that going to a crat is a one off - the diffs I've posted above are not a one off, or a coincidence where it wasn't strictly adhered to.

I believe your view is unreasonably strict and failing to comply with the community view, much like your desire to unblock a user who is appealing a ban. If such views are supported by the community at large, and written into policy as such, I will comply - but it currently is not. When several diffs unambiguously demonstrate that such a strict interpretation is clearly not the norm for this sort of thing (both in the past, and even the relative present), and all someone can respond with is that it may not have always been strictly adherred to in the past [only], then I might as well be talking to a tendentious editor who is stubbornly insisting that his view is universal in defiance of evidence to the contrary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming in to this a bit late — was there an official request from ArbCom made somewhere for a bureaucrat to make the final call on the ban appeal decision?

If so, was there a discussion anywhere prior to that request about this expansion of the bureaucrats' role on Wikipedia?

Was this a one-off trial, or is there an intention for 'crats to be responsible for all contentious ban/unban requests in the future?

If thereis going to be an expansion of 'crat responsibilities, there probably ought to be some community input. While I have no complaints about the 'crats performance of their existing duties, I'm not comfortable with expanding their scope until we've all had a chance to think things through. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In this instance, it was a one-off informal request here in order to expedite impartial closure of one case. If arbs are going to be written into a procedure, it would only be done after consultation/discussion etc. The whole ban appeal structure is, at the moment, experimental and evolving, as we try to find ways to handle them efficiently and swiftly.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I thought I was the only user on the whole of Wikipedia that had these questions and views...thank you for confirming I'm not the only one that is horribly lost by this substantial attempt to change to practise, without community discussion. Appreciate it. :) We're in the same boat; awaiting responses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, and this may come as a surprise, I've made those exact arguments myself. If you see the recent poll on whether 'crats should have the technical ability to desysop admins you'll find that I argued against the change specifically because bureaucrats were never selected for that sort of task - or any other apart from those which they currently perform. That is, I think, quite apart from accepting a one-off request from an arbitrator to close a discussion initiated by the arbitration committee. It is also unrelated to the issue of involvement, of course, which has become the chief issue in the above discussion (rightly so, I think). Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think Ncmvocalist's close was ok. I will note, however, that WP:Deletion process, a guideline, says: "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved." However, I think that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; in general, if an uninvolved editor would have made the same closure, there's no point in undoing and redoing a close just because the closer was "involved". There is no such thing as a truly "uninvolved" editor. Everybody has an opinion. When I close a discussion, I am there to evaluate consensus, and theoretically should not form my own independent opinion on what should be done. However, I would be lying if I said that I did not form my own opinion while reading the discussion. I will still try to close according to consensus, no matter what my personal opinion is, but I am human, and it inevitably affects my judgment. In fact, as an administrator, I am encouraged to use my judgment: we are continually reminded that discussions are not votes, and that discussions should not be "decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented."
• I think I've drifted a little off topic here, but I think my main point is: nobody is truly "uninvolved", and pretending so is folly; if a discussion is closed fairly, then it doesn't matter who made it, and there's no point in re-opening it; uninvolved editors can also make unfair closes, and then it also doesn't matter who made it: the discussion should be revisited.
• That said, while I find no issue with Ncmvocalist's closure of the discussion here, it is obvious that many editors feel that closing a discussion in which you have commented presents an appearance of conflict of interest, so I would advise other editors to avoid closing discussions in which they have commented; it causes more trouble than it's worth.--Aervanath (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny how it turns out

In my second RfB, there was significant concern as to how I would perform with username changes, and much less concern about RfA's. Since the time I have, thankfully, passed RfB, all I have done is usernames and I haven't had the opportunity to close a single RfA. Go figure -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I figure most opposes made on frivolous things like demanding "experience" with renaming are stupid - and you've been proven right. Much like people who get opposed for "not enough edits" yet make excellent admins. Really, the result of your RFA/B is generally separate from your ability to use tools well. Majorly talk 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CHU is the easiest job ever. Seriously, anyone with at least 10% brain usage can teach themselves how to rename users in no time. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about that — I've seen some pretty confusing usurps... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One one of my RfBs (the third one, I think), there was concern I only had 14 combined edits to the CHU pages. I now have 550+. Oh well. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

When I ran, it was fairly obvious that I didn't really have a clue about changing usernames. Infact, the word "username" was mentioned only twice, one in a question that asked "Do you think the changing usernames page needs more help?", and the other in my answer to that question. Times change... then we come full circle. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Flip side of this: in my RfA, I said I expected to spend time at WP:RFPP. In actuality, I've spent barely any time there in the two and a half years since. Just goes to show it's damn-near impossible to predict how your wiki-career will go... EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually offline, it seems, when RfAs close and similarly have spent nearly all my Crat time at CHU, where I've racked up a ton of edits too. And I similarly received some opposition for my lack of familiarity with the username processes. I'd be only too happy to close a load more RfAs, but there's been something of an RfA famine in the last year or so. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more that there's a ton more bureaucrats that are actually active. I mean, if you look at WP:CRATSTATS, you see that before I was promoted, Taxman and Redux were the most active at closing RFAs. Then, I was promoted, and I became the most active. Then after me, WJBscribe was promoted and he pretty much took over. After him though, its been pretty balanced. I'm still as available as I was when I was closing all those RFAs on my own, but there's about six other bureaucrats also as available. This system is preferable. :-) --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Temp sysop an alternate account?

Resolved

 – Sysopped by Deskana. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you temporarily sysop my alternate account Thatcher131 (talk · contribs)? I've been given oversight for the audit subcommittee and I'm not entirely clear which of the different deletion and revision hiding/suppression features are available to admins and which to oversighters. I figure it would be easier to temporarily make my old account an admin rather than try and have the oversight flag removed from my main account. I'll give it back in a couple of days after I do some testing and familiarize myself with the different interfaces. (My original user name was Thatcher131, after I renamed, I recreated the old account to prevent impersonation. I'll post from that account to show I still control it.) Thanks. Thatcher 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is me again, I still control this account. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The only thing we normals can do is delete and selectively restore the revisions we want, leaving the undesired revisions in the deleted history, viewable only to admins. –xeno ^talk 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Partly I'm trying to figure out how the interface looks to each kind of user, and how the log entries look for each kind of action. Currently, actions that are limited to users with "oversight" permission can appear in the oversight log, the suppression log, and the deletion log, and some actions that ordinary admins can do also appear in the suppression log. I can read the manual all day but the best way for me to understand it is to actually use the buttons a couple of times. If I'm going to "audit" oversight I'd like to have a good understanding of what they can do and how the actions are logged. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't see the revisions that you delete with revdelete, even if you do "allow admins to still view them", because we do not have access to Special:HideRevision, or whatever page you use to restore them, and we do not have the "show/hide" links in the page history. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't object to this request, it seems reasonable enough. –xeno ^talk 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First, tell us what does 131 stand for? Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If possible, I'd really rather have test.wikipedia.org be used for testing rather than the live site. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's not like he will be *doing* anything, he'll just be looking at the interface. — Jake Wartenberg 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The interface is not for random testing. Test wikipedia would be the perfect place to have a look. Majorly talk 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the test wiki is set up with exactly the same versions of RevisionDelete and Extension:Oversight. I've heard than enwiki's installation has some idosyncracies. Thatcher 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the config file (warning: kinda large), I don't see anything different between test.wikipedia and en.wikipedia (with regard to RevisionDelete and Oversight, at least). It's not a huge deal to use the production site, but there are advantages to separating testing from actual logs. /me shrugs. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins have the "deleterevision" right on testwiki. Mr.Z-man 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My understanding is that the only difference between testwiki and enwiki is that admins on test.wiki have the deleterevision permission, while enwiki admins do not. As noted, the RevisionDelete mechanism is divided into two; anyone with the deleterevision permission can hide edit summaries and usernames, while oversighters also get the suppressrevision permission, which adds the additional checkbox "hide this edit from admins and lock this interface". That is, oversighters can hide an edit like other revision-hiders, and then lock the RevisionDelete interface so that 'mere' revision-hiders can no longer view or change the settings. On enwiki the point is moot, as no one other than oversighters have deleterevision in the first place; so there is no difference between the two levels. So in fact testwiki is a more representative demonstration of what would happen if the ability to hide revisions 'normally' were given to administrators. So using testwiki is a bad idea, as it'll give you the wrong impression, but essentially all you need to know is that enwiki admins have no access whatsoever to Special:RevisionDelete (new system) or Special:HideRevision (old system); we never see the "show/hide" or "change visibility" links; we cannot view the suppression log, oversight log, or those bits of the logging that end up in the deletion log. We cannot view hidden users on Special:ListUsers, nor hide/unhide them on the block form (although that, technically, is a separate permision to Oversight itself).

The more I think about it, and write down how it looks, the more I realise that you've actually got a good point: particularly wrt the logs, there's no substitute for being able to see with your own eyes what's going on. We already have admins running adminbots on separate accounts, breaking the "one flag one user" rule is not taboo. As long as you don't take any admin actions from the account (and why would you when you've got your main one), I can't see a problem with this. Happy‑melon 18:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just give him the flag, where's the harm? And if that doesn't work out, just ask a friendly Steward to take away your oversight-rights temporarily, that should do the trick, too. :) --Conti|✉ 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think it's a huge problem. My alt account had a flag while I had trouble logging into my main... And then some admins have their flag permanently on an alt account... (rawr). –xeno ^talk 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem very risky. If it turns out that Thatcher needs to take some actions with one account or another for testing, he can always mark them 'Audit' or some such in the log. Compare the WP:New admin school, which allows new admins to check out the buttons and does not require them to go to a separate wiki for testing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this request is for a good reason, although I do not have enough technical skill to see the merits between using en and the test wikis. However The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin access according to WP:SOCK (not according to me, just that page I might add) so let's go careful before any can of worms is opened. Pedro :  Chat  19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there are significant differences between prior cases that caused concern and my request (I don't want a joke account, this is not an attempt to deceive, etc). I'm not going to hold my breath until I turn blue or anything, this would simply be very helpful to me understanding my new responsibilities, and would be temporary. Thatcher 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Requests from ArbCom subcommittee members are good enough for me. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was on ArbCom's Working Group for Ethnic Wars which is sort of like a subcommittee. Can I have a 'crat flag?  :) --JayHenry (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but as an attempt to meet you in the middle, I am prepared to offer you an indefinite block. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 12:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm willing to negotiate, can I possibly get a second opinion first? --JayHenry (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, it probably would have been better if we'd set up a Working Group against Ethnic Wars rather than the one you mention.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but for the fun of it, I think I'll concur with the first opinion due to your participation in these types of hate groups. :) On the main topic, I think this approval was a great idea since the new oversight abilities are really rather confusing. They don't 100% do what they say they do and it took quite some effort to figure them out when they were made available. - Taxman ^Talk 04:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand Thatcher's response. I use my non-sysop account to check stuff out through "new eyes" every once and a while, just to make sure I stay grounded as an editor. Kind of refreshing sometimes. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AGK: sysop flag restoration.

I respectfully request the restoration of my administrator rights. My resignation, on 28 December 2008 (which was requested to allow me to focus my energy on a demanding RL project), was not made under controversial circumstances—cf., meta:Steward requests/Permissions/2008-12#AGK@enwiki.

Many thanks,

AGK 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done; welcome back, AGK. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. AGK 11:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back :-) SoWhy 11:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My day is now 1000% percent better. Welcome back, AGK. Xclamation point 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a "full of fresh flowers and scurrying squirrels kind" of welcome back. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! AGK is back. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely great news. bibliomaniac15 20:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, AD, don't forget to update WP:FORMER. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words, chaps. :-) AGK 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a sight for sore eyes. Useight (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)