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 20:40:21 on May 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop

Could someone resysop me, please? I resigned uncontroversially in October. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Resignation seems uncontroversial after a contributions and talk page check; welcome back. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were going to wait 24 hours for these for potential issues to be dealt with? This was 18 minutes. Talk pages and contribs don't tell everything. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The user had adminship for slightly over a month. I skimmed over all his projectspace contributions over that period to check for abnormalities, as well as the talk page history. Several users noted that they "weren't sure what brought on" his request for sysop to be removed. I'm certain everything checks out. Nonetheless, I confess that I forgot about our discussion for the 24 hours, and I agree that it's a wise rule to stick by. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion didn't really determine a consensus for 24 hours. (X! · talk)  · @773  ·  17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, there was more than one thread on this, but I can't find the other one. Were there in fact two? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, there was no consensus to enforce a wait period. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall being being told there was a 24hr wait period after a thread on it. Perhaps we should chat about it again to ensure we're all on the same wavelength. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having been intimately intimated in this I'd suggest, yes, we have a chat about it. There's no major issue with allowing a "cooling off" period for re-sysops. 24 hours isn't that long to wait... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How about formalising it a bit: Resysop requests must be made here, and not on user talk pages irc etc. Resysopping can occur 24 hours after the first crat has commented indicating they are happy with resysopping (24 hours from the time of the opening post does not necessarily mean it has been checked by anyone, particularly during holidays). Viridae^Talk 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with waiting 24 hours. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is needless bureaucracy, and I have no intention of waiting 24 hours. Nor was there any kind of consensus to do so. Andrevan@ 21:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But consensus could be established to do so. Personally, I think there is no harm in waiting for some double checking to occur. Maybe not a fixed period but, let's say, 2 or 3 crats should indicate agreement before access is restored? Regards SoWhy 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Resysops are uncontroversial. We want to encourage users to give up their flags before a period of inactivity and not feel like they will need to pass some kind of mini-RFA to get them back. Andrevan@ 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resysops are uncontroversial if the tools were given up uncontroversially. Some trivial guideline (such as an incredibly short waiting period) to ensure that this is in fact the case is hardly needless or cumbersome bureaucracy. --JayHenry (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(<-)I agree with Andrevan. As I have said many times, my view is that someone who "gives" up the tools under non-controversial circumstances is not considered to be removed from the sysop corps. Rather, it is analogous to a self-block for a forced vacation. The sysopstatus remains, only the access to the tools has been placed in abeyance. Reassuming the tools is not a change of status, nor even a resumption of a status. Rather, it is resumption of the tools that go with the status that was never removed. While a second check to make certain there was no controversy is not a bad idea, to enforce a waiting period is improper in my personal opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they should be easy and uncontroversial. But on the other hand, we also want to ensure that those who gave up the flag under a cloud (for example when faced with a community considering their desysop) can not quietly slip back after a few months. At the very least, we should consider that all requests are made here and not privately to one of the crats. Regards SoWhy 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That final point seems reasonable enough. No backdoor requests accepted. Majorly talk 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Has there been an instance when somebody "slipped in" and were resysopped by a 'crat when they actually had left under a cloud? Just curious. Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't have happened without further discussion, but it wasn't seen that TRM was unfit to regain the tools at the end of the day. I like to think I've since improved the way I review requests for re-access, but I agree with Rlevse that a 24-hour wait period is a good idea. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, TRM's re-cratting was subsequently confirmed by other bureaucrats and a motion from ArbCom. I'm sure you know this, but your wording could have been more clear. Nathan ^T 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Rather than "wasn't unfit", I should have said "was fit". Others confirmed him; and, of course, his bureaucratship is entirely legitimate. More discussion would have been best, though. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaranda/Secret was resysopped after resigning under a fair amount of cloud cover, enough that at least one bureaucrat stated he wouldn't give back the bit if requested. Fran Rogers (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is there any objection to this particular resysop? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoo, I missed a busy weekend. Sorry I wasn't around to weigh-in on the RfB, but it doesn't look like you needed me. This resysop looks entirely uncontroversial.

I'd suggest a 24 hour wait is appropriate. It gives enough time to avoid a mistake. And it's not such a terrible bar that it would stop someone wanting to hand in the tools and reclaim them later.

However, I have two concerns: 1) that we police this page to avoid inappropriate dramafests arising from sysops requesting tools back, but being attacked by those they've had conflicts with in the past 2) Perhaps we have a policy on this, but I'm ignorant - how do we handle requests from RTV new accounts of admins who can identify themselves privately to the crats and are requesting their tools back? I dimly remember a fuss about this happening once, but would appreciate a reminder or regularisation of what's agreed. Clearly, if we do permit this, not all the info can appear openly on BN. --Dweller (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RTV creates certain issues; there is a tendency on this project for it to be used as shorthand for "quietly changing accounts because of harassment/outing/other significant purpose." But our policy says RTV is walking out the door for good and never returning under any username, ever. Now, I *do* see a reason for having some process that permits the first, but it needs to be called something other than RTV, and be more clearly defined, because sometimes people get justifiably upset when someone who has claimed "RTV" has really just formally shut down one account and started another for some reason or other, and then seems to be tending the same gardens so to speak. Risker (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd want any of that handled through arbcom. I understand that there are times due to personal and safety issues that a break has to be made between the account that underwent the RfA and the new account, but I don't think that is our place as 'crats to re-hand out the tools where the community cannot see a direct connection between the RfA and the current user. This is NOT like a vacation, this /is/ a new account. ArbCom can make that decision and inform us, and, in that case only, that is handled via the crat e-mail list and not this board. Otherwise, everything MUST be handled openly, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the crats agreed then that admins who leave because of (say) harrassment, and wish to come back with tools through a fresh account without the bother of RfA, should approach Arbcom? --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Yes. There needs to be some record. And while non-sysop editors may contact the CU list, I think ArbCom needs to be involved when bits are being handed out. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Avi on this particular point, but I still think that for general uncontroversial resysop/crat requests, a 24 hour wait period is appropriate and not unreasonable. I also think this particular resysop was fine. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think that in regular cases a second set of eyes is more than enough, and that there shouldn;t be a time element :) -- Avi (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a short wait period should be required and 24 hours is not unreasonable---but I don't think we generally would have to wait 24 hours. It's not a matter of one or more sets of eyes, but a chance for somebody more familiar with the situation to say, "Hey this was under a cloud." The clock should not be based upon whether or not a 'crat has seen the initial request, others can investigate as well. The ONLY question is was there a "cloud/was the desysop an attempt to evade sanctions." I would suggest adding verbiage to the section on resysopping to indicate that it could "take up to 24 hours" for a resysop to occur. As is, nobody really expects INSTANT responses and an instant reaponse is not necessary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

18 minutes after Jafeluv announced his decision to return, Anonymous Dissident granted the request.

22 minutes after Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_17#The_Rambling_Man announced his decision to return, Anonymous Dissident granted the request.

If the complaints can be believed Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_17#The_Rambling_Man was named in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking which "proposed decision in that case began 3 days after he resigned". Ikip 08:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No secret admins

I don't believe there is community support for a process wherein an admin "disappears" and the adminship is secretly transferred to a new account. This has been perpetrated on editors in the past and then anyone who attempts to question it is basically cudgeled into silence. This is unfair. Secret admins are able to behave as gods, silencing anyone who questions their background, receiving no rebuke whatsoever from the people who secretly anointed them, and no accountability if they are continuing past abuses on a new account. Were this but hypothetical. It needs to be explicitly forbidden so no bureaucrat or steward ever abuses their power this way again. The creation of secret admins is probably one of the most egregious abuses of elite users against regular editors. I strongly believe there is almost no support for the practice of secret adminship. --JayHenry (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is important enough to be its own subheading. --JayHenry (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um Jay, is this is reference to the above section? Or some other section? Please clarify. Ikip 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently some people are confused here. This subthread is in response to the general issue, raised by Dweller above, about whether bureaucrats can secretly transfer the admin tools to a fresh account, on the grounds that there's a person controlling the account who was once an admin on a different account. I'm not talking about the specific case at the start of this thread (hence the subthread). I know general vs. specific can be a confusing distinction. --JayHenry (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you except when specifically directed by Arbcom. We elect ArbCom to be the final arbitors of editor behavior and bit dissemination removal. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Have to disagree with at least your choice of words. ArbCom may be the final arbitors of who has their bits removed, but the arbiters of who receives the bit has always been in the hands of the community. Although sadly this seems to be changing.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair enough. However, the person who is changing their name is the same person who the community trusted in. The question is one of bit removal due to a change in username. I firmly believe there must be a record of this, in the event it ever happens (I do not personally recall any such case) but I am willing for that record t be in the hands of ArbCom if there is significant risk involved. So this is actually a matter of removal, not gifting, but I concur with your point and will change my sentence above. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this is simply untrue. In the case of a secret admin the community has no clue who the admin is. Did they resign under a cloud or not? Are they continuing disputes they had on a past account? Are they violating pledges they made on their RFA or not? All admins really ought to be linkable to their RFAs. --JayHenry (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the precedent is, and I'm not sure I like some of the hyperbole already in this thread, but equally I'm not too bothered by precedent unless it's been enshrined in our policies. It doesn't seem that it has been. On that basis, (unless someone argues persuasively) it seems to me there's no community consensus for us to regrant a bit to a new account in private, and, as I said above, I'd be happy to bounce any such request (currently notional) to Arbcom. --Dweller (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that I would be violating the WP:OUTING policy by discussing specifics. Don't you see what a ridiculous catch 22 this is for regular editors? --JayHenry (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but I do believe that there might be cases where IAR might be sanctioned. Namely, if there had been a release of personal identifying information about an account that should not have occurred. But in this case, I would expect there to be ArbCOM action or something significant justifying the action. It should NEVER be performed "just because".---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've only seen this happen one time, a couple of years ago, and even though the admin in question had a perfectly fine history it still turned into a smoking pile of shit, with a reconfirmation RfA and the whole drama works. I agree with Jay that people who want to RtV need to visibly earn (or, I suppose, re-earn) the trust of the community under a persistent identity. If this means it takes an RtV former administrator a year to get the bit again via RfA, it still beats having people who are administrators with essentially no visible history on the project. Nathan ^T 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The "secret admin" concept never worked. On the occasions it was attempted, the interest created by a new unexplained admin soon led to third parties deducing the account's previous identity. I doubt anyone would be well advised to pursue it, even if there was community consensus to allow it (which I doubt), and would be surprised if anyone chose to repeat the experiment. As a side note, I do not believe that ArbCom can require bureaucrats to promote users, anymore than it can require one user to block another. Past instances of so-called "secret admins" required a willing bureaucrat and ArbCom assent. WJBscribe (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be circles where the secret admins are known, but these are not the circles of regular editors. I know of at least two secret admins and I'm fairly involved as far as it goes, but I don't have time for IRC or WR (or wherever else the secret identities are discussed) and thus have no clue who they were when they passed RFA and have absolutely no faith that they are legitimate. I hope this thread has established broad agreement for the future that the practice does not have support. --JayHenry (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are willing to go out on the limb Jay, and talk openly about who you are talking about, this section is simply entertainment, and nothing else. Ikip 03:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not entertainment, because I'm trying to establish consensus to not allow this to happen again in the future. There's no dispute that secret admins have been created in the past, it's simply not allowed for regular editors like us to discuss it. Should be fairly obvious that this is a big problem. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I don't know how often you spend on policy pages like this, but this is the first I have ever heard of this problem. If you came here to reach a consensus, you will be disappointed. Who frequents Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard? It is not average editors. It is veteran editors, mostly admins and arbcom, who have a stake in the status quo. A RFC may get a little more support, but if this was approved by arbcom, there is no way a RFC is going to change a damn thing.

Unless you take a risk, including maybe risk your editing privileges, nothing will come of this. I am not privy nor follow many of these disputes, but the cases that come to mind, I believe editors have often risk their editing privileges to reveal these issues. Ikip 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of allowing "secret admins". It doesn't seem fair to make a user who's worked their way up to admin status start all over from nothing just because they were harassed into hiding. Besides, almost no one who starts over can really truly pull off a convincing "new user" disguise, and people will question them even so, possibly to the point of opposing their RfA. Moreover I think a "secret admin" would generally be willing to reveal their earlier account's identity to a trusted user. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm. The term "secret admins" seems a bit loaded too. I prefer "anonymous". Lots of admins are anonymous and if there are serious privacy issues associated with an account(like death threats or off wiki harassment) then I see no problem with changing back to an anonymous account. For the record, I have done it and it worked out well for me. I agree there needs to be a damn good reason. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, though I'll agree that there are damn good reasons at times (and I say that as someone that knows who you are... or at least I think I know...). Personally, I'd rather see admins who vanish over privacy concerns come back as a brand-new identity, which (unfortunately) means that they'd need to run RfA again. However, they'd have all the accumulated skill and ability that they previously possessed, which (in theory) should make RfA a slightly easier process for them. It also doesn't raise the eyebrows of those that would look at admin vanishings and figure out who got an "under the table" promotion shortly after. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with JayHenry. If an account retires and gives up the tools, the adminship should not be restored to a new account through bureaucrat from presumably the same user. If the departure was due to harassment or the like, then a resysop makes it extremely easy to find that person again. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RTV is exactly what is says: a right to vanish. Putting on a wig and a fake moustache is not vanishing so the policy does not apply. If there is an extreme situation where it is necessary for the good of the project to sysop a new account without an RfA, it should be done, but it should be extremely rare. When it is done there should be a prominent announcement about it so that everyone knows this is a "secret admin" and knows who it is that has given their word that the person can be trusted with the mop (ignoring rules quietly is a bad idea - it never stays quiet, so you might as well explain yourself from the start). A problem arises when there are complaints about the admin, since people won't know whether or not there is a history of such actions - for that reason ArbCom and the Crats should closely monitor any secret admins and come down very hard on any actions (particularly admin actions) that are unacceptable and that were also done with the old account. A comprehensive list of all controversial actions taking during that admin's past life should be compiled before the mop is given out and put somewhere all Arbs and Crats can see so that patterns with new actions are easy to spot. Putting together this list will be very time consuming (any admin that feels the need to disguise themselves will have plenty of controversy regarding them), which should discourage Arbs and Crats from doing it too often. --Tango (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed, is the editors who proudly wear the "vandalized x amount of times" on their user page, tend to be bullies. These are probably the editors who would be harassed, and who would then want to become secret admins. By claiming "harassment", whether real or fabricated, they would then be able to start fresh, without their nasty edit history dogging them, something which no editor is supposed to enjoy. Ikip 05:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think that if anyone wishes to change usernames in such a way as to completely sever themselves from any previous account, they should be required to go through RfA again. As they are starting over, they should start over, including not having any of the extra bits they may have had under a previous account. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If JayHenry is willing to raise the alarm but not name in names, unless I am missing something, wouldn't it be very easy to check which editors suddenly became admins against the formal successful RFA list? Not much of a secret

Did admin Jafeluv have a secret admin account for 2 months? Whether or not this is true, this is the logical conclusion editors will formulate, since JayHenry originally raises the "secret admin" account issue in the thread about Jafelu above. Ikip 07:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) thanks for the clarification that this is not the case Jay and Dweller. This is the problem with secrets, editors sometimes come to the wrong conclusion trying to fill in the missing pieces. My apologies to both Jafeluv and Jay. Ikip 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was me that raised it, and I have no knowledge of it having taken place with any particular admin, other than I'm dimly aware that it has. Your conclusions are incorrect. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with JayHenry. If someone invoked their RTV (notwithstanding the fact they're not even supposed to come back!) then they should go through the motions again. –xeno^talk 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Username changes and accounts on other wikis

Hi there. I'm a bit confused when it comes to clerking WP:CHU at the moment, since different crats seem to have a different approach to renames when accounts on other wikis are involved. The case I am referring to are renames that involved renaming a user here to a name that is already taken on other projects but where no SUL account exists. For example, on Wikipedia:Changing_username#Cipher_2009_.E2.86.92_Cipher_.2710, Avi says that the user could usurp the account Cipher on this wiki, while Will declines a request at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Elizabeth_Bathory_.E2.86.92_Luna because the user with the strongest claim to the SUL account would be forced to give it up (and he says that SUL will be enabled to be automatic?) then. So I wonder: Should we tell users requesting a name that is already taken on other projects but where no SUL account exists that this is not possible or that it's possible or that it's only possible if there are no edits on any project? I sympathize with the first option personally, but I just thought there should be a general guideline for those cases. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is another such request (currently active) at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Speedoguy_.E2.86.92_Speedo. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And Sławomir Biały2 → Slawek for that matter. Were it up to me alone, I would decline those requests, but I will wait and see if a consensus otherwise emerges from this discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I believe we all concur that we want the user with the strongest claim to the SUL to retain it. When it comes to Cipher, the user trying to usurrp Cipher has more, and more recent, edits on EnWiki than the other users, so I feel that they have the stronger right. I have not checked the Luna claim, but it is likely that the other editor has more, and more recent, edits on their home wiki which would forestall the usurpation here. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would point out is that bureaucrats exercise discretion individually when granting or declining renames, which means we won't always be singing from the same hymm sheet. That said, it's probably best if our approach doesn't differ too much. I don't tend to review in detail the instances where bureaucrats have granted/refused renames (except perhaps for very new crats to offer advice) and I suspect others don't either. You're therefore in a better place than we are to notice if we're being inconsistent, as you have here.
I would decline a request by any enwiki user to usurp User:Cipher, regardless of the number of edits they have made or recentness of either account's edits, as I did with Luna. Performing such a rename can alter which account is recognised by the software as the "home wiki" of an account. The effect of renaming an enwiki user with many more edits than the current "home wiki" account is to displace that user's right to create the global account. If the person renamed creates a global account, the previous "home wiki" user will not be able to create any more accounts with that name.
The English wikipedia community has appointed me to be a bureaucrat, which allows me to rename users on this project. Our local policy even allows me to rename enwiki accounts without GFDL significant contributions to allow other users to use them. But no other project has appointed me as a bureaucrat. I am therefore very reluctant to take an action on this wiki that affects a user on another project in this way. If across all wikis, a username is taken but has zero (or no significant) contributions, I tend to be OK with the rename. I am not however happy with determining that an active enwiki user with 10,000 contributions is worth more than a frwiki user with 100 who no longer edits. Given that enwiki often has editors with higher numbers of contributions than its sister project, it would seem to me to allow people to muzzle in on popular names all too easily.
I also see little point in creating new SUL conflicts that will need to be resolved later - there are far too many as it is. Renames to a particular chosen name are never necessary. They are something which someone way want and which may make them happier, but I do not think rename requests should be granted where deterimentally effect a good faith user on another project, even if their contributions have been few and they are no longer active.
Back in July 2008, I noted this issue and proposed on this noticeboard that "Unless the name has zero edits (or zero non-trivial edits) across all projects, I do not think we should consider it available to users here." Those who participated in that discussion agreed with this approach and I presumed that it continued to be taken by other crats. I am not aware of any more recent discussion about these issues since then but, if consensus may have changed, they may warrant renewed discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, I agree we need a new discussion and to hammer out what we should or should not do. I'd like to ask any passing stewards to drop in as well, as they deal with multiple wikis more than we do. As an aside, please see meta:Help:Unified login#Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account?. -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly on the same page. I think I'm slightly more lenient; if a user on another project with, say, 50 edits hasn't edited in a number of years, I'd consider passing the rename. It all depends on individual circumstance. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm with AD here. I'll generally not permit, but am prepared to be flexible, depending on circumstances, another being that there are two or three accounts of the same name, none of which have more than a few edits. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I remain very uncomfortable with appointing myself judge of the worth of a user on another project who has made 50 edits and is not currently active. For me, the cost of displacing a good faith user outweighs the happiness performing a rename might give the enwiki user who wants to be renamed. If consensus is now against me, I will cease to decline these requests, but I am not willing to perform them. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is against you; as you say, we're able to exercise discretion, so it's not crucial we're all on exactly the same page. I for one agree with what you're saying, in effect. And, I don't think I'd pass the same rename if a frivolous reason were given. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, you noted on Elizabeth Bathory's request that the devs want to turn on SUL to be automatic? Is this correct and if so, what's the status on it? Will they force a rename for everyone not having the SUL account? I think that should be taken into consideration when discussing this question. Regards SoWhy 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's something that's been discussed on and off. Last I heard about this, it was suggested that SUL would ultimately be enabled automatically, with accounts that lost out being automatically renamed to something like User:Foo@enwiki, making way for the global rights holder for User:Foo. I don't know if that's still the plan or when this will happen. It may take a long time, but then again a lot of the current problems have arisen because we didn't really believe SUL would happen and then suddenly it did. The whole point of SUL is only having one user per name across all projects. Anything that creates a situation with several people holding the same name across different projects is likely to be only a temporary solution to what we're considering. Of course, sometimes temporary ends up being a long time. WJBscribe (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BAG req

Just a note that by my math, Harej's request to join BAG has been open more than seven days now (7 days, 16 hours). No hurry to the other crats, but as his nominator, I can't close it, so someone else needs to. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:rfatally

Why is the template so out of date on SoWhy's RfB? --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had been wondering that, too. Considered manually putting the tally in, but that didn't seem like a good long term solution. Useight (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm familiar with how the program works, and confident that manually updating it from time to time isn't going to cause any malfunctions. And if you look at the history of the page you can see that other people do it too; it's not just me. As for why the tally has been slow to update lately in general, rather than going nearly once per hour like it used to, you'll have to ask X! about that. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We r fatally flawed. :) Chutznik (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unchecking the box

Any 'crats interested in voicing an opinion here: WT:RFA#Unchecking the box? -- Avi (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking‎. -- Avi (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)