Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

SUL backlog

There's a backlog at WP:CHU/SUL — Rlevse • Talk • 04:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have cleared now. Caulde 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu

A request for comment is underway regarding admin User:Hemanshu. Desysopping is being considered. More input would be appreciated.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the point in notifying the bureaucrats' noticeboard? Caulde 18:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Has something changed recently about that RfC that you're choosing to publicize it now? Avruch T 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, as the originator of the RFC, I am a bit surprised to see it popping up again. I've been checking Hemanshu's contribs once a week since it started and since he hadn't edited since Nov 7th, basically ignored the RFC. AFAIK nothing has changed. MBisanz talk 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hemanshu hasn't edited for a month: what's changed here? I'm not seeing anything new developing. Acalamari 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Why the sudden fuss with the RFC? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was committing some sort of faux pas. I just saw that the RFC had been running for a long time, and hadn't received much input. I figured an RfC where one of the proposed remedies is desysopping the subject would benefit from the input of editors who frequent this board. If I was wrong to do so, I apologize.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue authority and credentials

Buried in the morass of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:_Moondyne_and_User:_Sarah is a germ of a suggestion that usernames that overtly state that a user is an expert in topic X (in this case "X Expert") should not be permitted under our username policy's prohibition of "undue authority".

I think this is a slightly grey area that could do with some colour. We all know how damaging the Essjay controversy was and the issue of misclaimed credentials is proven to be potentially more damaging to the Project than misclaimed admin powers, which is how we normally interpret the policy.

I'm still half asleep, so this post is somewhat half-baked. Anyone want to take the ball from me and run with it? --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One must distinguish between areas where experts are deferred to, and areas where they are not (because everyone is an expert ;-) ). e.g. personally I find Topology Expert (somewhat) problematic, but Tennis Expert merely bombastic. Do we really want to ban the latter username? Hesperian 11:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't block usernames for being bombastic. Its a running joke at another forum I visit that self-proclaimed "experts" are invariably full of it. In any case, the bureaucrats don't decide username policy. Jehochman Talk 11:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but we do apply it. The current policy is somewhat vague on this point. How about (all theoretical) User:Chemistry Professor editing on chemistry articles, User:Brigadier in Indian army editing on Indian military articles or even User:Economics Nobel Laureate editing on economics? Would those usernames imply undue authority? --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the current username policy WP:USERNAME, in its current form, actually precludes usernames like Topology Expert or Expert in Physics or PhD in Mathematics or Chemistry Professor. I personally do not think usernames should imply authority, due or undue, (whether or not such authority is warranted by real-life credentials or by Wikipedia contributions). Such things are usually unverifiable, more often than not unwarranted and undeserved, and can have an intimidating affect on other users. But I don't know if trying to change the username policy to say this is worth the trouble and I have doubts that it would gain approval. I do agree with Hesperian that something like Professor of Star Trek is merely bombastic while Engineering Expert or Professional Lawer is mildly problematic. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy already prohibits names that imply undue authority, without specifying what "authority" means so even without a change to the policy, there's a problem with some of these variations; hence my post here. And given our problems with false credentials in the past, I think it's worth discussing. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Partially I agree with you, some of the username variants discussed above are already problematic per existing policy. However, in my observations, at WP:UAA and even WP:RFCN things are usually interpreted fairly permissively and wide lattitude regarding usernames is given (basically for good reason, as people do not like to impose their will on others unless clearly necessary). So in practice unless this issue is more clearly spelled out in the policy (whose current wording is fairly ambiguous), I don't think the current policy would usually be invoked in cases like those discussed above. The policy would have to say something like "Usernames should not imply substantial authority, on-wiki or off-wiki, or significant subject-matter expertise. Usernames like Professor of Chemistry or Expert in Physics or Doctor of Law should be avoided." Or something like that... Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
An Editor's contributions and talk page arguments should not be based on that editor's position, but should be based on that editor's citations and ability to make a fair, cogent argument. Usernames should be taken with a grain of salt. I am probably in the minority of this opinion, and I certainly support some sanctions on username credibility. Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your thinking. However, with the current fairly ambiguous wording of the policy, I think that if one tries to bring up a username like PhD in Physics or Professional Photographer at WP:UAA or WP:RFCN, it would not get much traction there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
You claim to be the king of turtles. Can you prove that? Jehochman Talk 14:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ha! That made me laugh :) Kingturtle (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why a user should be allowed to claim to be a professor or an expert in something, but not allowed to make said claim in his username. Where's the difference? --Conti|✉ 14:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that the former types of claims are usually made at the user's userpage or in a few isolated edits here and there and for that reason their effect is fairly limited. However, when a user has Professor in their username, an assertion of authority is made in every single edit. Even for RFA-approved admins having "admin" as a part of the signature is inadvisable and, as far as I know, not done. Nsk92 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm uneasy about policing user names and suggest that most editors are smart enough to know that user User:Professor of Morphology may be no such thing in real life. The current de-facto policy of lax username policing, except when the name is offensive, allows for free expression not just of our actual position in life but also of our aspirations or desires (me, I've always wanted to be a park beholden to a regent!) and seems to work very well. Of course, the case of admins is different because an admin has explicit authority (due or, often, undue!) and constant reminder of admin status can be perceived as undue authority, something which is not true for the poor misunderstood User:Professor of Morphology.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Also, by having it in their title, it adds credence/intimidation to the name. It also lends validity to the title. Let me give a simple example, if I claimed that I picked the name Balloonman because I was a professional balloon twister for 10 years, you would be more inclined to believe me than say somebody name User:Dr Johnson. Now if you were to goto Balloon modelling and saw an edit war between Balloonman and Dr Johnson, without knowing anything else about the two of us besides our names, who would you be more inclined to believe? I garner some credibility in the Busker related professions because of the choice of my user name. Now, if you were to go to a page on Church History, and saw me and Dr Johnson arguing there, who (based upon name only) would you see as more credible? Would it matter that I spent four years working on a Master of Religion in Church History? In other words, user names do convey authority/expertise above and beyond what might be conveyed in user boxes or on a user page... in fact, I think more people would view a user name as more indicative of a persons credentials than a claim on a user page. Eg if Dr Johnson claimed to be a Dr of Church History, I would be more willing to accept his claim than I might "John Johnson" making the same claim. Anybody can claim anything on their user pages at any time, to claim something in a user name requires pre-thought/planning.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There has to be some wiggle room though. User names such as User:Doctor Dolittle or User:Professor Longhair should be ok. Kingturtle (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed... as could the user:the Doctor of Love or user:love_doctor now to see if either of these is a blue link;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, as seems to be emerging here, this is a common-sense issue. Crats, if you found these people at WP:CHU, how would you respond?

  1. A user, active in Indian military articles, requests a name change to User:Brigadier in Indian army
  2. A user, active in ancient history articles, requests a change to User:Professor of Ancient History
  3. A user, active in romance and relationships articles, requests a change to User:Doctor of Love

Hey, maybe I've hit on a whole new RfB meme. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Might I add #4:

4.A user, probably a teenager, requests a change to User:Doctor of Love---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do I see these questions showing up on some saps next RfB?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I'm asleep---didn't realize Dweller made this exact point above. As for Q4 it is the same user name, but the scenario is different. In short, how might the editing history affect the decision?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, I implore the bureaucrats and community not to invent yet more reasons to arbitrarily block people under the guise of a username policy. Are you actually an Appraiser? Are you actually a Pilot? Are you actually a Baron? Are you actually the Cavalry? (To pick admins on the first page.) Note, it doesn't matter if any of these people are. Would you even consider forcing these admins to rename if they couldn't or wouldn't verify it? WP:BN and WT:RFA are endless founts of terrible ideas, but this is close to taking the cake. Undue authority should be extremely limited to usernames that actually imply authority as in "has power", rather than authority as in "expert in a subject" or "has some vaguely-relevant real life credential". So, User:I am a Wikipedia Bureaucrat or User:Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are undue authority. User:Professor of Maths implies no authority on Wikipedia. People use such terms loosely. Anyone can call themselves a professor and who are we to determine which university accreditations in which countries are acceptable for the claim? If I claim to be a Professor in Hippopotamus Biology in what sense, exactly, is my claim false? Any bureaucrat who would decline any of Dweller's renames is unfit, an admin who would block any of those usernames needs to be quickly disabused of the idea or desysopped before they hurt the project. Always remember User:ggggggggggggggg12 (to pick an example we know--there are probably hundreds we don't) when thinking of further adding scope to WP:U's demonstrated potential to damage the encyclopedia. --JayHenry (t) 17:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are talking about blocking anybody here, but I think it would be useful for the username policy to provide clearer guidelines regarding good and bad usernames, even if people are not actually punished for choosing bad but non-blatantly bad ones. I actually think that User:Professor of Maths would be mildly inappropriate since it does imply particular subject matter expertise, which is usually impossible to check and even if verified/verifiable should not be so prominently displayed. I think that users, especially ones that are new or even experienced but unfamiliar with a particular subject, often do tend to think about users with such expertise-asserting usernames as having some additional real-world authority in those particular subjects and would often tend to assign to the opinions of such users on those subjects extra weight. This is generally undesirable, especially if a User:Professor of Maths actively edits math articles. Purely bombastic usernames such as User: Professor of Life, Universe and Everything are certainly never a problem. Nsk92 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree that we can get pretty stupid pretty quickly when it comes to WP:U violations. For non-blatant examples like User:Brigadier in Indian army, it all depends on actions, not the name itself: is the user making edits to Indian topics, or army topics, or making overt claims to authority? More importantly, are they doing so maliciously and/or destructively? If someone assumes that such a named editor is an expert, that's their assumption to make, and there's no reason for us (especially the 'crats) to step in unless there's an actual problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
So you would make those changes in Dweller's hypotheticals? Stepping to block somebody and making the requested change are two different beast.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've never really taken any of the names of come across as serious statements of authority. My username is a random collection of syllables thrown together because I thought it sounded cool when I was 15 and have just used it ever since. Because I never really put any thought into my username, maybe this means I'm less likely than most to read anything into other people's choices of names. Am I that much in the minority here, or are there more editors out there who put no stock in people's usernames whatsoever? User:Roux used to be called Prince of Canada, and I don't think anyone ever thought he was ever actually a royal!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about blocking or denying a rename? The latter is appropriate to discuss here, blocking a username would be handled here: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking about renames, specifically where the name and the area of editing interest overlap. I mean, would we want to grant somebody unknown the user name of "Chief Medical Examiner" when we know the person works on crime/foresnic related articles? Would we have the same concerns if the person was her or her? Would we have the same concerns if the person never edited medical or crime articles? While I might have concerns with a rename in the first scenario, the later ones wouldn't phase me in the least. I wouldn't have a problem with the first, if the first could prove to me that the user name was factual. But if they couldn't, then *I* might look at the name change differently. Is the request to imply special knowledge and would a 'crats decision to make said change, convey an implicit/explicit endorsement of the authors position. (It would be a completely different matter if somebody CAME to WP with the name "Chief Medical Examiner." What are the implications of WP changing a user's name to something like that?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, on CHU, we ask for a solid reason behind the requested rename. If the reason is not convincing or shallow, we deny the request; or in this case ask the editor if he or she is aware of a potential conflict of interest. Additionally, we ask them to create a more accurate pseudonym instead. If they do not respond, we archive the request. I have seldom blocked users on the CHU page for name issues. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody here has proposed that crats block somebody for name changes. And I'm glad to hear what you just said, but I think that feeds back into the original post by Dweller and his hypotheticals. If a person said they were a Chief Medical Examiner, and thus wanted that user name, would they get it? Why or why not? *I* am asking because I'm curious. What are the criteria that 'crats would change a user name to something like that?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I can say with fair confidence that bureaucrats do peer review each others' work on CHU. Also, at times clerks also question some of the renames, and we pay importance to some of the suggestions. For sensitive renames, (involving personal information) we do email each other for input, but this is exceedingly rare, about thrice a year on average. I can't speak for all bureaucrats, but this is what I would do: Taking the brigadier example: 1. if the requesting person is new to wikipedia, I would deny the rename, requesting the person to choose another rename on the grounds that a more appropriate name would be useful for the project. 2. If the user has been on wikipedia for some time, I would go through the contributions. If the person is heavily involved in military articles, to the point of POV warring, I would deny the rename. 3. If the contributions to military articles are in line with wikipedia policies and culture, I would add a note that the username does carry a potential conflict of interest, and request the user to confirm that he understands this policy. The nature of contributions would also give me a fair degree of assessment on whether the person is actually a brigadier or not. On confirmation, there would be a good chance of a rename. 4. If no confirmation in five days, I would archive the request. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank Nichalp... names is an area where I am pretty deficeint in my background.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the acuity of the ordinary editor and overestimating the acuity of (and attempting to expand the role of) bureaucrats. Wikipedia thrives when people are encouraged to contribute and withers when the barriers to entry increase. Tread lightly is my suggestion but, since I'm neither an admin nor a bureaucrat, I'll leave it at that. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay Henry has the right sort of idea. I'm not the penultimate of a series of Russian rockets, though my name would imply it. Moreover, Special:Contributions/Spacecraftguy is indeed a spacecraft guy, though he doesn't use the name to wield authority. What we are facing is the fuzzy edge of the argument from authority problem. Something like "Topology Expert" might imply that the user has some sort of credentials in the area and their arguments in discussions might be given more weight. But it could also imply that he likes topology and names like User:Topologyrob or Special:Contributions/Math were already taken. I think we should be zealously guarding against the use of credentials in argument but we should be relatively permissive in the implication of credentials from usernames. If someone like User:I have like six degrees in advanced Quantum Lunchmaking starts bullying users on Sandwich, we come down on him like a ton of bricks. Otherwise we've got to just let people do their thing. The biggest complaint (right or wrong) we get from academics about wikipedia is that bureaucratic intrusion (and this time from bureuacrats, no less!) and obfuscation prevent them from contributing. Let's not add to that. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Having said this I understand Nsk92's concern regarding the issue and appreciate that this is being approached with some nuance. I don't mean to imply otherwise. v/r, Dr. Phileuos Snollygoster, Esteemed Professor of Quantum Lunchmaking. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    A couple of extra comments, possibly repeating myself (sorry about that). There is a difference between taking punitive measures (which really should be avoided except for blatant cases) and specifying guidelines for good behaviour by more clearly indicating which names should be avoided (even if some people don't follow that advice). I think that a username like User:PhD in Math is in fact rather undesirable. In my experience people unfamiliar with the subject tend to take strong cues from formal credentials (titles like Dr or Professor, for example), even if they don't consciously realize this. In fact, my feeling is that people generally take stronger cues from this kind of formal assertion of credentials in the name of someone than from assertion of similar authority embedded somewhere deep within the text. So in many cases when a user User:PhD in Math says something on a talk page of a math article, that opinion will frequently be given more weight. Usernames like User:PhD in Math are problematic both when the person using such a username does indeed have a PhD in Math and even more so when that person does not have a PhD in Math. Nsk92 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    I appreciate that there is some distinction between User:David Eppstein and User:PhD in computer science where david would have to say "I have a PhD in computer science, listen to me" but it would be implied for the latter user. However we would find nothing wrong if User:PhD in computer science edited only articles on Railway stations in Taiwan. We may even find it acceptable for that user to edit talk pages with a masked username (Like User:Thumperward, who signs pages as Chris Cunningham). I think context plays the overriding role here. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    You are quite right, of course, the context is more important. However, I think that policy-wise it is better to provide a good rule of thumb (avoid usernames that overtly imply authority or subject-matter expertise) that, if followed, will automatically prevent various sticky situations like that from arising. If User:PhD in computer science keeps editing articles on horticulture and ancient greek poetry, there is no problem. But if and when User:PhD in computer science decides to start editing computer science articles (as is rather likely to happen), there is immediately an awkward situation. Would we want User:PhD in computer science to constantly keep making disclaimers regarding their username meaning or not meaning, implying or not implying this or that? Easier to avoid this problem by choosing a username like User:Resistance is futile instead. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    Ok. But what about the David Eppsteins of the world? No offense to david, he assiduously avoids any insinuation (assonance!) that anything he says stems from some off wiki knowledge or authority, but it is a good example to pick. We can come to some agreement that in some cases usernames may imply authority and that may generate some chilling effect. what about real names with CVs on the userpage? I understand that is not strictly the same thing--for one, David was David before he was a comp. sci. professor. For another thing, clicking the user link on an innocuous name is a step further than just seeing a possibly non-innocuous name. But there is some connection between the two. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    While I am not a great fan of having real names as usernames, I think there is a substantial difference, especially in the immediate psychological effect on users unfamiliar with a particular subject. Most users (even, say, undergraduate math majors in the U.S.) will have never heard even of such famous mathematicians as Mikhail Gromov or Terence Tao. They are not likely to treat the name "David Eppstein" as anything other than just a proper name. Certainly they can look up his user-page and find out that he is a well-known mathematician, but that takes more time and effort and has a lesser immediate effect than seeing a signature that explicitly asserts some subject-matter credentials. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    I think we are very much on the same wavelength. Now my final question: at what point does a username become objectionable enough to ask politely but firmly that the user change it? Taking our example User:PhD in computer science. We can both say that the username itself makes us mildly uncomfortable. But we can also say that if the user was not a PhD and edited only unrelated articles, there would be no problem. Does the problem present itself the moment the account engages on a related field? The moment they post on the talk page? Or do we wait for some evidence of impact on debate? Protonk (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I think we would have to wait for evidence of impact. As of right now, the above conversation has all been based on hypotheticals. Until we actually see a user's name making a difference, then we can politely suggest that they change it. Up until then, it's sort of moot.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed summary

I'd like to try and summarise this.

If a rename request came in to the Crats that claimed credentials we might indeed choose to decline it on grounds of "undue authority", depending on circumstances. We'd look into the specifics of the case and might even, as we often do, consult with one another before making a judgement.

As for blocking existing users for claimed credentials on the basis of "undue authority", the discussion is thataway -> --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be case by case for renames and new accounts. An existing established user in good standing should not be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As a non-crat, this makes perfect sense to me ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree Kingturtle (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Crat tasks status info boxes"

We've a nice little bot-operated infobox on this page, linking to live RfAs and showing overdues.

I've no idea if this is possible, but it'd be great if we could have other status infoboxes, showing / linking to open Crat tasks, for example X live cases at WP:CHU, X at WP:CHU/U, X at WP:CHU/SUL and X at WP:BRFA.

I'm sure this would make our work more efficient, reduce the chances of backlogs and allow us to spend more time doing other tasks, like admin work or, gasp, writing content.

Is there potential for this to happen? I freely admit I am no techie and these things are beyond my ken. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If a bot can do that, the place to request one would be Wikipedia:Bot requests. Quick, move this before a discussion erupts here too. Just kidding, actually we would want to discuss what form it should be in after someone agrees to code it. For example, there is already a status template for BRFA on the BRFA page, but it isn't likely what we'd want on WP:BN. Instead we probably just want a summary with how many are approved and awaiting being flagged. In practice though, those are often flagged before any bot would notice they need to be. - Taxman Talk 13:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, on the basis that no-one'll object to this idea(!), I'll head over to Bot requests. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I do see a potential problem, but I wasn't quick enough and we'll let someone that can code it sort it out and see if they can solve it. The problem I see is that with WP:CHU, WP:CHU/U, and WP:CHU/SUL they will be hard for a bot to tell if they are awaiting bcrat action or user action. If the bot can't tell that the template won't be of much use. You don't need to be alerted or linked to a case where we are waiting for the user to decide a new name for example. - Taxman Talk 13:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
True, but this can be looked at in the fine detail. For example, just a scorecard of "open tasks" for each would be a start, perhaps (additionally?) refined to "requests not yet responded to"... shall we see if anyone's prepared to do the work and then see what problems we encounter and then overcome them. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#.22Crat_tasks_status_info_boxes.22 --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How soon does the bot refresh the page? 15 mins? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
SQLBot updates currently every 30 mins. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Totally outside this specific discussion, but Dweller, could you slow down a bit? This is the second time I've seen you ask for some feedback and then gone ahead with something scant hours after asking the question (the last time was a rename question that I somewhat disagreed with). We're not under a deadline here, we can take the time for more than a single 'crat to weigh in.
Of course, the flip side is that neither instance is particularly impactful (for lack of a better word), and I actually do think this one would be a good idea, but still, I think waiting more than a couple of hours (10:49 to 13:22) and for more than a single person to respond would be a good thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a problem with Dweller's approach. It will take some time for the bot request to be responded to, I suspect. AGK 17:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, outside this specific discussion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(cross post) I'll work on coding it, once consensus forms. Or I can just do it now, as it's not too difficult. I can just reuse some code from existing bots (e.g. SoxBot II, SoxBot VI, ClueBot VI, and BAGBot). Xclamation point 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done Is this OK to go to BRFA now? Xclamation point 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if you've got some code already, send it up to BRFA and we can discuss what changes need to be made if any. Off the top of my head what would be needed ideally would be a listing of the outstanding renaming requests that are ready for bcrat action, and the same for approved bot requests. My worry is to get anything that this bot can parse properly it's going to require more edits to keep things in the proper syntax than it is going to save but we'll see. - Taxman Talk 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Crat tasks
RfAs 1
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 10
Approved BRFAs 0
Bot approved for trial, table is at right. Xclamation point 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Right, but what do you think of the possibility of making it only count the ones needing bcrat input? I don't see how just counting all of them helps. There's lots of each type that need no action. - Taxman Talk 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
BRFAs could probably be done pretty easily, RFXs are also pretty easy. It already does the CHU reqests. I'll work on it later then. Xclamation point 04:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could some small text indicate when the Bot last ran and how often it runs? --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This needs to show WP:CHU/SUL and how many bots are approved and need flags. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Notice: I have renamed RRaunak (talk · contribs), blocked for sockpuppetery, to RRuk (talk · contribs) on the grounds of right to privacy (his real name). He contacted the oversight team privately via email. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Thanks for the notice, Nichalp. By the way, is your wikibreak over? :) Xclamation point 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oft and on. But not actively editing. Pop in to see if I can lend my suggestions or opinion where needed. Also need to save two FACs from FARC :( =Nichalp «Talk»=
WP:BEANS may apply here. John Reaves 14:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
How? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Putting his real name up on the noticeboard (but now that I think about it, I don't think the Wikipedia: namespace shows up in search results). John Reaves 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes they do, only User: pages do not. All other pages in all other namespaces, except for Request for X and X for Deletion are google-dexed. MBisanz talk 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The only namespace which is completely restricted from indexing is the user talk namespace. See MediaWiki:Robots.txt for all other pages which aren't indexed by search engines. I've been bold and added this noticeboard there. Graham87 12:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, addding to the robots.txt file was not needed. He was embarrassed with the sockpuppet template on his userpage, and just wanted it to go from his username. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CHU bot/s

Could they handle an extra script to automatically prompt users whose requested rename reason is "Reason for requested renaming." to give a reason? --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been hapenning for a long time - perhaps it should only be made optional; thus removed from the CHU template. I've long though of the idea, just never thought anyone else was bothered by the generic statement. Caulde 17:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the current consensus among the Crats is that we want people to complete a reason. So, can we get the bot to automatically note to the requestor that they replace the text with their reason, to save us or a clerk needing to do it manually? --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I formerly had it written in, but it was removed after people were saying that they didn't like it. Xclamation point 17:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Missed that one. Where was the discussion? --Dweller (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It was in offwiki conversation. Xclamation point 04:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. That makes it hard to follow the arguments of the Crats who participated. <scratches head> Is it possible to see what it looked like? (needn't be a 'live' version) --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Just giving some early warning here. I will be almost completely offline for the holidays, from 20 December to 30 December, and will not be able to help on WP:CHU during that time. Thank you in advance to the bureaucrats who perform the holiday CHUs. Kingturtle (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would if I could, no doubt Dweller will do it - he's usually the best at responding quickly. Caulde 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Always happy to help. I'll be around much of the holiday season. I try to prioritise CHU, partly to cover my embarrassing inactivity with Bots... something I'd like to put right in 2009. --Dweller (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Not going anywhere either. Just me, Wikipedia, and some hot cocoa. bibliomaniac15 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that my availability to perform renames will be considerable reduced until further notice. That said, the proportion of renames processed by me has reduced a lot in recent months and I am confident we have enough cover to avoid backlogs developing. My thanks to those bureaucrats who have taken up this task. WJBscribe (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I'm also indefinitely semi-active for the next two months. Can't say which way I'll swing after that. Maybe for the worse. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

+Sysop template

There is a template that we can use for notifying new admins that looks like this (sample only):
Rlevse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has
closed successfully and you are now an administrator!

Useful Links:
• Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide •
• Administrators' Noticeboard • Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrators' Noticeboard for 3RR •
Your admin logs:
• blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

  • {{subst:User:Rlevse/IssueMop|Rlevse|Rlevse 2}}

where arg 1) is the username, and arg 2) is the username used on the RfA. If they're the same, omit the second, as so;

  • {{subst:User:Rlevse/IssueMop|Rlevse}}
— Rlevse • Talk • 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm certain all bureaucrats (who do bureaucrat work) have their own templates. In fact they've existed for years... Majorly talk 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Some do some don't... some like to leave personalized messages for the candidates... some like to have leave standardized messages for the successful candidate. While *I* personally like Rlevse's template, I respect the variances among various crats.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, that's really nice work! Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KT, but other people wrote the code mostly. I had lots of help on the code part. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I like it too, FWIW. Fixed a couple of typos in the template. You might want to add a few more links to admin pages where there are chronic backlogs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm particularly fond of the template Rlevse awarded me. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Some really useful stuff in there, thanks. I like posting something that's less templatey in feel, though I like the way you augment it with a personal message. --Dweller (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't use templates at all for this. I find that a personalized message is best for any new admin; after all, they deserve that at least for running the gauntlet. bibliomaniac15 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I often add a personal note at the end. And I for one was glad to have a similar template when I became and admin because it gave me a bunch of handy links. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of declined CHU request

Resolved
 – apologies if a non-crat shouldn't resolve a section, but I'veChris G just blocked this guy indef, so unless he comes back with a pretty strong and convincing assurance in an unblock request that it won't happen again, this thread is moot. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that I can be wrong from time to time (and, recently, perhaps too hasty - I'll work on that). With that in mind, I'd appreciate feedback from my fellow Crats on this username change that I declined.

Please view threads: 1, 2 and 3

I'll also notify User:Elonka, further to her comments in thread 1.

Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. If it's a Jewish identity he's looking for ask him to choose something that won't offend others and reflect his contributions on WP rather than kicking a storm in a teacup. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I support Dweller's actions as well. For another thread, see User_talk:Elonka#اسمیم, which was a response to User_talk:קײק_פּלז#Thanks. And just copy/pasting the links to those threads is difficult, because of the left/right nature of the scripts which keeps bouncing my cursor around. As a quick nutshell of what happened, I noticed this user pop up in an ArbCom enforcement area that I was watching. He was obviously familiar with Wiki-procedures, as he had just created his account on December 1, with immediate babelboxes.[1] I asked him politely to change his name to a Latin script. In most cases when I make this request, people immediately comply, or at least set up a Latin equivalent in their signature, per WP:SIG#NL. Instead, this user adopted an attitude of "Do I have to?", by starting a thread on my talkpage with yet another non-Latin script.[2] Then when I continued to engage in conversation, he explained the term "kike" was in his username, and used it as an analogy for a black user putting the word "nigga" in their own name as a joke.[3][4] I told him it wasn't acceptable, and to change his name. Along the way, he also put "kike" in a userbox on his userpage.[5] So he attempted to change his name to the equally un-typable (and again left/right problems) אויטאמאטיש, which I nixed, and then I put a {{username}} block on him, telling him that he had to pick something in a Latin script. When unblocked, he requested a change to "Yahudidevriyesi", which as near as I can tell is Turkish for "Jew-Hebrew". When that was declined, he put a long rant on Dweller's page about how since someone was allowed to have the username Blackpower (talk · contribs) back in 2005, that he should be allowed to proclaim his Jewishness in his own username. I think this is a ridiculous argument, and that he's pulling our chain, in order to try and have an inflammatory username in a topic area that's already a powderkeg of ethnic rivalries. I'm willing to give him one more chance to pick a non-controversial username, but if not, I think we should just block him for disruption and move on. --Elonka 18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, he's entitled to a non-Latin username (after SUL implementation we cannot discriminate). Usernames should not be offensive. Kike is a slur, but Jew-Hebrew? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Dweller, you acted responsibly here. You were careful and tactful. Kingturtle (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not only point to "black power". You also have users with "muslim" in their name. I'm sorry but it's simply unacceptable to me to contribute to an encyclopedia so threatened by my using the word "Jew". This is a reaction I'm used to receiving by people who very much ARE made uncomfortable by Jewish people, and I've met a great deal of them in my life. Most people (non-Americans) who I alert that there are Americans who think the word "Jew" is controversial comment that America must be a backward country indeed. Non-Americans who are shocked/offended by the word "Jew" are few and far between. I'm afraid I didn't choose an isolated name, I selected a couple names at random, and why Muslims are allowed to have "Muslim" in their name and Jews are not allowed "Jew", the only reason I can think of is anti-semitism. This is not a joke and I shall not be selecting an other name. If you feel I'm unfairly accusing you of anything, I'm sorry. But I shant be around to hear a rebuttal. Elonka finally put up a fairly accurate depiction of events (Although yahudidevriyesi is Turkish for Jew-Patrol, not Jew-Hebrew) However, if the existence of my ethnicity is "inflammatory" you still have to do something about any users with "black" "muslim" "mexican" "irish" "polish" "italian" etc. in their username. (over the top comment redacted, account blocked indef. --barneca (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by קײק_פּלז (talk • contribs)

OH SHIT! CIVILITY GONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by קײק_פּלז (talk • contribs)

I added {{unsigned}} [6] for clarity. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs implementation

I'd like to draw bureaucrats' attention to FlaggedRevs implementation proposal #161248, which (unlike the previous 161,247 :D) seems to be attracting a serious degree of support. As the 'crats play a fairly major role in arbitrating its deployment, we'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the proposal, and whether your role would benefit from being more explicitly prescribed or modified, before it goes to an evil !vote. The proposal is found at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Trial, with the ongoing discussion at talk. Any comments or criticisms would be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Will mull this over more. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
If the proposal has a successful trial, is it envisaged that admins will be surveyors, or that admins plus some others will be surveyors? I was left unclear, but then I am half asleep right now. --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Think that it'll be worth a go. I think that surveyor status should automatically go to an admin if they aren't one already. I think limiting surveyor status is a good idea for prevention against using it to edit war/promote POV. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It's important to remember that this is intended to be a tightly-controlled trial, so surveyors will be very thin on the ground - probably no need for more than three or four. Who gets the permissions associated with 'surveyor' in the long run is one of the things the trials are supposed to suggest ideas for; I wouldn't be at all surprised if it ended up being bundled with the admin package as you suggest. In terms of the trial implementation, it's mostly a question of whether you're happy judging when there's a consensus to start a trial, and hence promote a surveyor, or if you think the proposal needs to be more prescriptive in that area. Happy‑melon 00:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
*bump* :D Happy‑melon 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think if you want Crat input, which seems an excellent idea, you may need to wait a little... we're a bit thin on the ground just now - see above. I presume that, as usual, there's no deadline. Can this wait a couple of weeks? --Dweller (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And there was me wanting to start a poll in a day or so :D. I suppose patience is a virtue, and no, there certainly isn't any deadline, but as always the counterargument is how long this process has floated in the doldrums already. Certainly the only reaction there'll be to you not answering yesterday will be increasingly frantic jumping-up-and-down-in-the-corner-trying-to-get-your-attention antics from me... :D In your own time, I suppose... :D Happy‑melon 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Is it any help to consider that none of the 3 crats who've so far posted here have thrown any china around?

Yet.

<grins> --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess you crats are just like bulls in a china shop :D Happy‑melon 23:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to take a bit of time on this, but I wanted to think it over. I do think the tasks asked of bureaucrats in helping out with the deployment of the trial are quite manageable so that part isn't really a problem. Even if it went to the full level of an RfA style vetting for someone to be a surveyor, we do that anyway and there aren't too many RfA's right now. But that does bring up the point that the proposal may gain some opposition if there isn't already a specific process in mind for picking surveyors. The other problem is it may gain opposition from some people just because they don't like the specific idea discussed not realizing it can be changed. Rock and a hard place to some extent. Happy-melon you asked if we would be comfortable judging if there was consensus to start a trial and I would personally, and I think enough others would as well as long as long as it was made clear enough going in that it's just a trial and therefore rough consensus is good enough, or define the threshold even if you want. So I say go ahead. - Taxman Talk 15:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, although I wouldn't have been able to put it as clearly as Taxman has. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Taxman (and Dweller). We'll probably kick up a poll sometime after Christmas then. Happy‑melon 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat activity page

Because of the relatively small number of active bureaucrats we have, I propose that it'd be a sound idea to create a page (perhaps a subpage of BN?) detailing when each of the more active 'crats is likely to be contactable, online and able to fill requests. People are often waiting around for 'crats to do specific tasks, and if we knew when those people were on, it'd make matters more speedy and efficient for everyone. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full support of this idea. — E ↗ 13:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Plus there are some bcrats, while active, do not perform bcrat actions for whatever reason. Such a page detailing each bcrat's timezone, most active area (if any), and best times to contact them. There could also be an option to move oneself to inactive, if one knows one will be away (e.g. The Rambling Man). Majorly talk 13:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This page: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats lists crat status, time zones could be easily added to it. The arb clerks page, WP:AC/C has the clerks' time zones. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the Bcrats page to a pretty table. Bureaucrats should now fill it in. Majorly talk 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the table. Did some updating. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Will you not be filling your own entry? Majorly talk 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Already did, we must have overlapped. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Added mine – I'm curious about GMT. From what I read, GMT implies a static timezone. Should it be marked with "GMT/WET" for precision? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't see how the chart will be that helpful. Just knowing someone's timezone isn't necessarily going to help you know if they are on wiki at that moment. Also I can't think of any bcrat tasks that could be waited for that wouldn't be better served by posting here to the bcrat's noticeboard. Finally, I personally prefer not to put out a lot of personal information so I'd rather not have my timezone in the chart anyway. I imagine some others feel the same, but by creating the chart it does make it seem as if we're supposed to put our info on it. Either way I suppose people can still choose to include their info or not. Of course the other downside to the table is it is much more complicated syntax to maintain without giving much more usable information. I'm never in favor of taking more time and edits to maintain something since that doesn't benefit article space. - Taxman Talk 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably "TAX TIME" would be a good timezone to add :-) (Sorry I couldn't resist this one -- just for old times sake!) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ha, that's just too tempting, but what time zone abbreviation could work for that? :) - Taxman Talk 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Taxman that is simple -$-$-$---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to add your info, I'm sure people will respect that. Personally, I find this easier to maintain than the the 3-block set we used to have. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It's more helpful than the list that was formerly there. Obviously you aren't expected to fill in all the columns (timezone merely gives an indicator of whether or not you may be online, or whether it's 4 in the morning where you are). You aren't really expected to maintain it, apart from perhaps saying you'll be inactive for awhile. If you find the table syntax too difficult to work with you can always post here and someone else could add it for you. It's just supposed to be a guide. Majorly talk 15:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't care for the new layout much, myself. We are not everybody's lawyer, and need not be expected to drop everything to answer questions and fulfill requests the moment they arise. I make myself available on IRC during somewhat regular hours, but when I log off it is because I am busy with something else and don't have the time to answer questions and such. The jobs we do aren't especially urgent anyway -- in contrast, say, to those of checkuser-ers, oversighters, or stewards. And we all know how to do all of the jobs -- none of them requires a specialist. I don't see how this table of details offers any advantages not already available through the bureaucrats' noticeboard, though I wouldn't be opposed to a note at the top of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, pointing users with questions toward the noticeboard. [I wrote this at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats first, but I've moved it here so as not to split the conversation.] — Dan | talk 18:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This is really what I was getting at. There's no real benefit to either set of information (the new or the old) that make them worth the edits they take to keep updated. Just because we can isn't a good enough reason to do lots of edits that don't contribute to Wikipedia's mission. We have way too many of this type of edits and it's far too uncommon that people question whether it is worth doing. To my mind, the bar for any support edits should be how closely they align with Wikipedia's mission, and if a close linkage can't be found they shouldn't be done. So as Dan mentioned, better than trying to contact a specific bureaucrat is using the right page such as RFA, CHU, etc to make the needed request then if there is anything that needs it this noticeboard is available. - Taxman Talk 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how being a bureaucrat or an oversighter contributes to Wikipedia's mission, yet you hold both those rights. Why don't you surrender them if you're so against making any edits that don't directly benefit the encyclopedia? In fact, why are you posting here at all, when you could be editing an article? Thing is, most bureaucrats take pride in the "job", and are happy to help out wherever they can. Saying that basically, you don't want to update because you have better things to do, strikes me as odd - do you even want to be a bureaucrat? As you point out, nothing a bureaucrat does directly benefits the encyclopedia, does it? Majorly talk 01:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Both roles do contribute to the mission and it's easy to see how. However edits on a page about bcrats don't help nearly as much. The rest of it, you're saying things I didn't. But I do find it valuable to discuss the idea that we should do less of the less valuable edits. Otherwise these types of things do grow like a bureaucracy and feed themselves until more and more effort is directed away from the mission. Therefore bringing it up is contributing. - Taxman Talk 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to make any edits to it then, you aren't required to. Other bureaucrats who don't mind "wasting" their edits will update of course. Majorly talk 12:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm no more worried about wasting my edits than anyone else's, bureaucrat or otherwise. I don't see why that would be a concept that would be worth such a vitriolic response from you. Nothing in my comments referred to my edits. - Taxman Talk 19:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ, but I don't care to argue over this. Majorly talk 22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrevan reverted the addition, claiming there's a lack of support. I can't see anything like a lack of support here. One bureaucrat even went through the table helping to fill it out. Majorly talk 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think there's consensus to change it from the status quo, or a general idea that the new format is in any way beneficial. Andre (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear comments from the other bureaucrats, most of whose support seems to have been inferred from their having added their information to your chart. There's no need to argue over what the outcome of the conversation is before it's over. — Dan | talk 05:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the details, and I don't think it would be too hard to maintain it, or someone maintaining it for us on a monthly basis. While it presents good data for statistical analysis, what would be the purpose served exactly? I may list my time as X hrs to Y hrs, but it may not necessarily be that I am active on that day on WP. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's supposed to just be an indicator, not set in stone. It's more helpful than before I think. Majorly talk 12:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the new format; it shouldn't be difficult to maintain and it does provide some useful extra information. For example, stating which areas we are generally active in should be useful. I'm sure that times will vary for many of us, and so I've put my timezone and noted I'm mostly around at evenings and weekends. Warofdreams talk 13:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I give, but I still can't see the value of the table. At no point is an individual bureaucrat needed and anything is virtually guaranteed to get faster response time by posting here to the noticeboard so the first available person can handle it. - Taxman Talk 19:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If "customer service" is what we're after, the table is detrimental: it draws attention away from the actual process pages where requests can be handled most efficiently. — Dan | talk 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that my head's working and I understand the message on my talk page (!) (sorry Majorly - it had been reverted when I checked) I'm in two minds over this. On one hand, I wonder what the harm is, but on the other, I share Dan and Taxman's concerns... people should definitely come here first. Only caveat would be if they wanted to find one of us offwiki for a quiet word, eg a rename due to RTV issues, which does happen from time to time. However, I'd suggest that the new format (which makes active and inactive more difficult to dissect) isn't necessarily helping with this. Perhaps for me the answer is the new format but more worked up (separate into two tables for active/not and/or sortable columns) or perhaps revert to original form. I'm persuadable, but not currently comfortable. I'll think more on this. --Dweller (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the table some to try to make it easier to read. Do you think it is too, um, loud? Or is it a good idea? J.delanoygabsadds 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really see anything wrong with the original three-column format. A table is nice, but I'm not so sure it was really a necessary development. Crats don't really have any pressing jobs to do most of the time. bibliomaniac15 02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really like the big unwieldy table that we have now either, I just don't really care enough to try to get it removed. I think it was a great idea on paper and was worth giving a go, but it isn't really accomplishing too much now. I do have massive hatred for one particular column though :-p. 99% of bureaucrat jobs are so simple that I don't see any merit to that column. You could ask pretty much any bureaucrat to do any bureaucrat job and they could do it, excepting the trickiest RFAs, so I see little value in noting where people tend to work when not asked to work somewhere else. --Deskana (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. bibliomaniac15 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we may be moving toward a consensus to at least remove that column... --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm of course fine with that, though I'd rather see the whole thing replaced with an explanation of the best way to get help if needed. - Taxman Talk 15:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that column is a waste of space, like the table format itself. Andre (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Fine with that column going as well, it was only there as a suggestion. I would appreciate it if you would stop making snipes at people's ideas unnecessarily. We know you don't agree with the table, and saying someone's idea is "a waste of space" can be pretty hurtful. Majorly talk 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
So, one supposes, are uncharitable remarks such as "most bureaucrats take pride in the 'job' ... do you even want to be a bureaucrat?" [7] and downright rude ones such as "Bureaucrats are some of our most seasoned editors, I think they would have got to grips with a basic table by now" [8]. I'm all in favor of civility on noticeboards, and I see no harm in the occasional polite suggestion to be less abrupt; but these are likely to carry more weight if, as a matter of personal policy, you apply the same standards to your own comments. Cheers — Dan | talk 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I was a little frustrated when I made those comments, yes - my apologies if I caused offence. Majorly talk 20:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation question

I'm still fairly wet behind the ears with usurpation and keen not to make (too many) mistakes.

I've reviewed at some length the edits of User:Paddy. It is my opinion that all the mainspace contributions were either misguided (and therefore long since reverted or reworked) or very insignificant to articles. However, unsurprisingly, there are Paddy accounts on a whole bunch of Wikimedia sites ([9]), especially on de: and commons. I presume that's enough to need us to deny the request - but if there were no other Paddys, I'm interested (for future application of policy) to know whether my analysis of the GFDL issues would be supported and whether other Crats would agree to a usurpation. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate that we segregate contributions based on what we think are minor contributions. I would hate to think that contributions I made in 2004 are not valued because it has been overwritten five thousand times. We must recognise the contributions, no matter how minor they are, unless they have little or no significance (vandalism, single instance of fixing vandalism). As per GFDL, all contributions I make are copyrighted to me, and I would not my name (attribution) to be changed without my permission. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You also need to consider which Paddy is the home SUL owner, that person has primary rights to the account name. I'm not saying that gives him an automatic trump card, but it is a factor to consider in several cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Termer's RfA needs a close

Could somebody please close Termer's RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Termer? The candidate withdrew[10], but people apparently are still !voting. Nsk92 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Deskana (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation and talk pages

Please see User_talk:Dweller#Usurpations. Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always done this. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, when you usurp, you should delete the remaining user: and user talk: pages; otherwise, it gets botched in the move. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, for some reason it doesn't override the redirects. Better to err on the side of caution though. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I always do when I remember, which is probably more than half the time. — Dan | talk 06:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/lustiger_seth

However this RfA will be closed, I think a short closing statement explaining the decision would be much appreciated. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That really goes without requesting, I think; unless there was a massive surge that caused it to shoot over or plunge under its current percentage, it'll get a closing statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, I'm sorry. Just wanted to be sure. :) — Aitias // discussion 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say the result is pretty obvious, anyway. :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Good call. I wasn't following particularly closely, since I knew I wouldn't be around to close it, but your closing statement echoed the sense I got from the RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Aaawwwwwww, SHUCKS!!! :-D Who didn't see that one a'comin'? *hic*--Koji† 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additional job for SoxBot on CHU

It'd be nice to get an automatic notification if there's no edits made by the requester, other than to CHU. Of course this isn't a definitive reason to always deny a change, but it's helpful if the Bots make things as clear as possible. Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Added. Xclamation point 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be nice. bibliomaniac15 19:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suntag

I withdrew my request for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suntag. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Toolserver down

The toolserver (useful eg for checking SUL usage of requested usernames) is down.

Does anyone have any info about likely time of resumed function? --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be up again tomorrow. Not entirely sure though. Majorly talk 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
River said that it should be up within an hour or two. Xclamation point 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
11.5 hours on from X!'s post, it's still not working for me. Is there a central noticeboard for it? --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
River said it would take longer than expected. Right now, bots on the toolserver can run again, but the webserver is still down. Xclamation point 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's back up, but s1 and s3 are unavailable. I just did a SUL report on myself to test it out, and the bulk of my accounts aren't being listed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Still not working. Is there a central noticeboard for it? --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an issue with yarrow. someone needs to go to the new data center to fix the issue, ETA is sometime next week. Canis Lupus 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone place a big fat notice on the three flavours of name change pages, drawing attention to this problem and how it means in many cases we can't help with name changes right now. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added a sufficiently garish notice on all the CHU pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
@Canis: So now are we going to have a Neopolitan changing username page? Somehow, the SSP2 page seems reminiscent of Neopolitan... Xclamation point 08:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been using my own SUL report to test if the server is back up, and I just got a full report. Tearing down the banners now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/crat stats

In a fragmented conversation on our talk pages, Rlevse and I have been discussing how WJBScribe used to keep this up to date.

I'd be utterly hopeless. I did suggest TRM might be a good candidate, but of course he's away for some time still. I then noted that it needn't be a Crat - just someone competent - and suggested I post here as an "advert".

Majorly has volunteered. IMHO this isn't a big deal, but just in case, thought I'd run this here anyway, in case one/some of the Crats has an objection. For the record, I thank Majorly for his offer and would be prepared to accept it, so long as the same system is perpetuated - I think it's a good page currently - with plenty of opportunity for discussion before any changes are implemented. --Dweller (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. But yes, discuss changes before making them please. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyone should be able to update it. It's part of NoSeptember's project, which he specifically says anyone can update pages on. Majorly talk 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Umm...what in particular is so objectionable about Majorly updating the tables? bibliomaniac15 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Dunno if I came across in wrong tone - I have no objections to it, and so far, no-one else does either! --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine if he is volunteering for it. Thanks Maj. MBisanz talk 19:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
My only comment, remains the one I posted to Dweller's page. I think this would be an excellent use of a BOT, if somebody were to write one that could update the appropriate fields. That being said, I don't care who else makes the changes.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on Bot. --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Color me "don't care who does it, but a bot would probably be best". EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The table is a fairly big and complex one, and it may be fairly difficult to code a bot for that. Then again, I have seen magic. Majorly talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Presumably the bot wouldn't actually "edit" the table - it would just re-create it each month rather than parsing anything. I could do it pretty easily in C++, though that's probably not very useful for a bot. --B (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I could give it a go if someone wants me to.... Fritzpoll (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
It does sound like an interesting task to try and code, given the variable like the BotStatus and UserRights log to overcome, even if it just spit out raw data and people make it look pretty on a table it would save valuable man-hours. MBisanz talk 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Consider it a challenge... I am an expert programmer with ACL (a highly specialized language for auditors) and love challenges. Somebody who loves bots should accept the gauntlet! ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
A bot would be awesome. I tried to help with this once and it's very tedious. I have no objection to Majorly doing it. When I mentioned changes I meant major layout changes should be discussed first, that's all. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary: we gratefully accept Majorly's offer to update the page and we're all hopeful a bot might be able to undertake this task, if a developer can overcome the technical difficulties. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cratstats template

Now that SoxBot is done its trial, and looks like its heading towards approval, the {{Cratstats}} template should probably go onto this page. I have put up a sample revision, to show what it would look like. What do people think of this? Xclamation point 16:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but again, if it doesn't tell the ones that need attention I'm not sure what benefit it has. For bots a numerical summary of the status column of Wikipedia:BAG/Status would probably be helpful (though it actually just removes the approved but not yet flagged ones from its list while here it would be better to highlight those) and if similar could be done for the CHU bits I think that's what people were asking for out of this bot. I think you could remove the RfA/RfB part either way since there's more information summarized in the SQLbot report that's already there. Talk to ST47 about getting the code to BAGbot if you think it would be helpful. - Taxman Talk 19:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I already have the code for BAGBot (I used to have a BRFA running for a replacement at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot IX), and I'll work on getting those implemented. I'll then run it through another short tria, to confirm it works. Xclamation point 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, sounds good. - Taxman Talk 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
And as I pointed out before and it got ignored, it lists CHU and CHUU but not CHU/SUL. :-( — Rlevse • Talk • 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, Rlevse, it wasn't ignored. :) It was noted in my things to fix about the bot. Xclamation point 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have added SUL requests, Overdue RfXs, and Approved (but not flagged) bots. Xclamation point 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Much better ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, is there still a chance of listing only the CHU requests that need attention? For example the number of Usurp requests that are actionable, as in over 7 days old, and other CHU requests that aren't awaiting user response? Also I still think there's no need to repeat the RfA/RfB stuff, but whatever everybody else thinks. Finally, it's nice to have direct links for everything in the table to where they can be taken care of, so if Approved BRFA or something nearby could link directly to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved that would help. - Taxman Talk 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Any stylist changes can go into Template:Cratstats/Style. I thought I had it CHU requests needing attention already. The format of the CHUU page would also make the USURP row very difficult to say only the ones that need attention. Xclamation point 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for the template to be included now, even if it can be improved further. As it'll be transcluded, enhancement can continue at the template page and we'll benefit straight away. Even flawed, it's a useful additional tool. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Redux (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done I have added the template to the header. Xclamation point 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on voting as a component of consensus

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so all the bureaucrats know...

Enigmaman's RfA has been closed put on hold by Deskana due to some CU information (possibly the only non-skewed way of saying that).

I'd recommend reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. Though nothing has happened that is quite within our purview, it's still something that we may have to deal with ('crat chat, etc) if/when the RfA is started back up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's happened so fast that it took quite a long while to read. I would hate to see Checkuser data turn a second RFA into a great drama-fest. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to participate in any dialogue that may need to happen when it comes time to close the RFA. Also, I've stayed away from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 because I'm not interested in contributing to another of Wikipedia's famous extemporaneous soap operas, but it might be useful to draw a few conclusions here so if a situation like this happens again we're better prepared. Here are three principles that seem to have gained acceptance in the discussion:
  1. When User A finds something out about User B which he suspects would, if widely known, affect the outcome of User B's ongoing RFA, User A should communicate privately with User B about his discovery before announcing it publicly, giving B the option to announce it himself, explain it away, deny that it is relevant to him, or at least be prepared for the coming storm.
  2. When User A is a bureaucrat, and he thinks his discovery may justify his interfering somehow in User B's ongoing RFA, he would be well advised to confer privately with another, or several other, bureaucrats to confirm his intuitions before doing anything about them.
  3. When User A is both a bureaucrat and a checkuser, he would be well advised to participate in any given RFA in one or the other capacity, and neither mix nor alternate them within a single RFA. This is not so much to avoid some supposed conflict of interest as to make the situation less confusing for all the onlookers, whose opinions of User B are after all the point of contention here.
To these I would like to add:
  1. Whatever else happens, we should avoid at all costs a situation in which multiple people know, or think they know, the "secret" information, and want to make sure that everybody else knows they know about it and have an opinion about it, without revealing what the information is. These situations produce an atmosphere of cloak-and-dagger secrecy which can only mystify the RFA procedure and escalate the argument about it. If no definite information can be revealed to the community, then members of the community cannot independently make up their minds about it -- which means it would be better off left entirely secret.
I'd be interested to hear whether the other bureaucrats (or anybody else, really) agree that these are four reasonable lessons to take from this incident. If so, then I hope we can keep them in mind when dealing with future RFAs -- though of course, as I'm always at pains to point out, things like this do not get written in a bureaucrat policy but become part of the tradition. — Dan | talk 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
RE bullet point 1: there are 2 major caveats that rarely comes into play. In this case, we are dealing with information that 1) couldn't be conclusively tied to Enigma (just his IP) 2) was obtained through means others didn't have. If, while investigating somebody's background, I stumble accross evidence of vandalism, I don't need to email them. It is only if I obtain said information via a tool others don't have access too... and in this case, the allegation was pretty serious.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested to see if there could be some sort of protocol made for these kinds of circumstances. bibliomaniac15 17:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was hoping to avoid with the last sentence of my previous comment. There are lots of ways in which bureaucrats are capable of screwing things up, all but a few of which we have so far managed to avoid completely; yet we have no written policy or protocol. When we do make mistakes, we learn from them, but we do not proclaim the fact by adding another two paragraphs to a detailed laundry list of things-not-to-do. There's no reason to break from a highly effective tradition just for this bit of newly-discovered wisdom. We get on fine without a rulebook. — Dan | talk 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis, Dan. Insightful as usual. I also agree with the follow-up that we should not be codifying this case as a precedent. Use common sense. Andre (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
All reasonable, particularly 4 - I made a similar comment on the RfA talkpage, with a bit more obvious irritation. I think, as I said there, that the participants were well intentioned. But it created an atmosphere that was not helpful to the situation. I'm not sure how point 4 can be implemented, though - its a facet of human nature, and we're unlikely to have much impact on that. The rest are good sense precautions for any future situations involving a 'crats. Avruch T 17:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA reopened. Obviously that shouldn't kill the discussion here, which goes well past this one RfA, but just thought I'd note it, on the off-hand chance that nobody bothered scrolling down two threads. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Usurping and new accountholders

Please see Wikipedia:Changing_username#Pschology101_.E2.86.92_Psychology101. Please will someone bring me up to speed as to why we impose this restriction? It seems daft to deny this request. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In general the rationale is it is because rename is privilege granted to established users. But in this case, it's a typo so I'd approve it. The bot cannot make human judgments. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-attributing anonymous edits

I have read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. I may have something to say about the substance of that discussion if/when the RFA reopens.

I write here to raise an ancillary issue that might have avoided much of the brouhaha with regard to the privacy policy. The RFA candidate had made edits while logged out. The bureaucrat wished to reveal the substance of those edits without revealing the IP address. Several workarounds were attempted, and in the end, the candidate revealed the IP address after the cat had escaped from the proverbial bag.

Generally, for user accounts, a bureaucrat can reattribute a group of edits by renaming the user associated with those edits. Thus, for example, if you were to rename "Crystal whacker" to "Nanotube noob", all of the edits made under "Crystal whacker" would now be attributed to "Nanotube noob", and "Crystal whacker" under that old name would cease to exist. Although IP addresses are not user accounts, I wonder if it would have been possible to re-attribute those edits by creating a user account "Enigmaman alt. account" for this specific purpose. If it's not possible now, maybe ask for it on bugzilla.

In this particular case, since Enigmaman signed his posts on talk pages, the IP address would have been visible in the contributions. Maybe in future cases this would not be a concern, so the functionality could yield some benefit. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done because the developers say so. See WP:REAT. MBisanz talk 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful link and the humor. I didn't know how far back into Wikipedia history I was going... :) Crystal whacker (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And to answer your question more specifically, it is not possible to reattribute edits made by an IP address the same way it happens with edits associated to usernames. Mainly because when we rename users what happens is not exactly reattribution, but rather a simple reassignment of all logged actions by that account to a new username. But it is essentially still the same account. Reattribution is quite different, because it involves attributing edits from one account or IP to another, something that no one other than devs has ever had the power to do. And because IP addresses are not user accounts, the only way to shift edits logged under them is actual reattribution, which requires developer access to manipulate the servers directly. There is no reattribution tool made available to anyone, be it Bcrats, Stewards or even God, and the only option is a somewhat laborious, manual work. Back when Wikipedia was a lot smaller, we used to have a request page for reattribution requests made to the devs, but this has long been discontinued, and it will probably never return. The devs are way too busy with other issues, and are usually not available to spend large amounts of time reattributing edits made anonymously. Which is part of the reason why we always ask of people: please take a few seconds to register. It's easy and completely free. Redux (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Crat needed to re-open Enigma RFA

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2#Fire this back up again. As Enigma wants it to be re-opened, and Deskana had stated he acted hastily (while also swaying the entire process by saying he would "oppose" which is apparently out of bounds for an acting crat) can someone else please re-open this RFA? rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to open it back up. With the closing 'crat and candidate being fine, I can't see a reason that we (the 'crats) shouldn't... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done Due to the RfA being placed "on hold" for roughly twenty hours, I've altered the closing date and time. This is not an extension of the RfA, merely an attempt at giving the process a full seven days to run. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Good call. bibliomaniac15 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Needs unprotecting. Majorly talk 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Tanthalas just did it. bibliomaniac15 17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wha wha wha, nobody said anything about unprotecting it. ;)
Also, I've just gone thru and done everything I can to make this look like a regular RfA; I've shifted it around on the RFA listing, manually updated the bot listings (both time and order), and shifted the entire CU discussion to a subpage of the RfA's talk. I'm not trying to cover up what has happened, merely trying to bring a certain degree of normalcy that has been missing for the past twenty hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Good call guys. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver acting very strangely

The toolserver has been acting rather strangely lately. It's not picking up SULs, and sometimes neglects accounts in other wikis. bibliomaniac15 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

that might be because s1: 2d 7h 49m 34s lag; s2: current; s3: 1w 3d 6h 54m 33s and not updating; server status issues. Canis Lupus 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The replication lag of the Wikimedia databases will cause these problems. It is slowly coming down as the days go by, all we can do is wait patiently. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 02:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

IRC channel

Some may doubt the usefulness of this, but I have set up an IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-crats as sort of the crat counterpart to #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikimedia-stewards. Xclamation point 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative. Now would be a good time to draw a line as to how much/what type of bureaucrat discussion ought to be done publicly. Skomorokh 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that this should be setup by a Wikimedia group contact and made private with +I rules, similar to the administrators discussion channel. Another thing, bureaucrats are allowed in the administrators channel, so what is the point of another channel? — JamesR ≈talk≈ 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Such a channel would be useful for bureaucrats to discuss procedures, such as a change in SUL reports, but discussions of particular cases and of hammering out policies should be left in the Wikipedia namespace. Kingturtle (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain a bureaucrat channel was closed at some point. This is a very bad idea X! and I think you should delete the channel. The admin one is bad enough as it is, we do not need bureaucrats making their decisions behind closed doors. Majorly talk 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the one time I was there I was the sole bureaucrat, I don't think we need to worry about that (and I'm there right now for my second round, and it's deserted). For that matter, the -admin channel is decidedly off-topic; it's dead at the moment, but prior to that we were joking about the worst possible things we could reply to OTRS tickets with. The paranoia around those three little letters has always baffled me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not like I'm against IRC - far from it. I'm against using backroom channels unnecessarily to make decisions. And it also encourages cabals and clubs, which is really bad too. It's like "You can't come in our channel, cos you ain't in our gang - you ain't got an admin badge!" This is why I question the usefulness of a bureaucrat channel. What purpose would it serve? Majorly talk 04:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Note that I'm not justifying its existence, merely commenting that IRC makes people twitchy (to such an extent that just rumors of my involvement managed to torpedo my second RfB). Part of the confusion is that, with or without the channel(s), it's perfectly easy to use backrooms. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
We have no need for a bureaucrat channel. I suggest that it be discontinued. — Dan | talk 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It has now in fact been discontinued. — Dan | talk 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really think there were any crat tasks needing IRC discussion anyway. Bot flagging is discussed by the BAG, crat chats should be here, username changes can be discussed there or here; there wasn't anything that couldn't be covered here or by email. bibliomaniac15 04:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation question

I would like to usurp the name Maddie (talk · contribs). However, WP:USURP states that the username must have no edits to any Wikimedia Project. According to sulutil:Maddie, an SUL does not exist for the name "Maddie", there are only 18 edits total under the name, the most recent being to ruwiki on August 2, 2008. Note that the edits to itwiki and enwikibooks appear to be test edits to the Maddies' talkpage. Is the name usurpable?

I'd appreciate responses from a few bureaucrats before posting a request. If the name "Maddie" is not usurpable, I have a few other names in mind that are similar to "Maddie". Cheers,-- Ashbey  Ӝ  02:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

{non crat} It's probably more useful to usurp a username that does not have SUL or any edits across Wikimedia projects - this simply makes things easier "username wise". Feel free to wait for a bureaucrat to comment. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 02:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The hu wiki is listed as the home wiki. In addition, it does have GFDL-valid contributions. Per our rename policy, we ensure that there are no cross-wiki conflicts before effecting a rename. In this case, there is a heavy conflict, so we would deny the request. The absence of a SUL does not change the situation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition to that, the last edit is too recent. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses. I have posted a request to be renamed to "Maddie!". Cheers,-- Ashbey  Ӝ  22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Old RFA

I stumbled across an old RFA I am having trouble figuring out. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch ended on schedule, but there is no close by a crat (not a template or even an edit summary). According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-17/Features and admins it was a successful RFA, but according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 4 it was unsuccessful. Could some crat who was around back then make a note on the page which way it closed? MBisanz talk 14:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 13:19, 17 October 2005 Robchurch (Talk | contribs) deleted "Eric van Aro" ‎ (Copyright infringement - see WP:CP for October 2, 2005; also http://www.eraki.com/vanaro.html)
This is the oldest item in Robchurch's admin log. It comes on the same day that he passed his second RFA. I conclude that his first RFA was not successful. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. He was promoted by Cecropia (talk · contribs · rights · renames) after a successful RFA 2. That is consistent with the Signpost article.
  2. Templates were not used back then. (Aug 2005). I think I introduced it. (Can't remember)
  3. You might have to scavenge the edit summary from the WP:RFA history, and who delisted it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cecropia promoted him after his second RFA. --Deskana (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 closed his first one as not promoted [11]. MBisanz talk 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The Signpost article was incorrectly linked to his first one. He passed his second RFA, but he resigned, and failed two subsequent ones. Majorly talk 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking around at the unsuccessful nominations of September 2005, it seems that the use of a template was not common yet, not until around late September-October. bibliomaniac15 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit reattribution after rename for large account

I know that it can take a long time, but does anyone know how long is normal for an account with, say, 55K edits?

I've been reassuring this user, but as the days pass I'm just beginning to wonder if there's a chance something fouled up and my blandishments are misplaced. More likely not, in which case it'd be useful if I could give the user something more specific to go on... --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody really knows. Just advise patience. Andre (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I did that two+ days ago! <grins> --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
That will probably take a while. I seem to recall a long time ago someone told me on wikimedia-tech that this is set as low priority on the job queue. It was also part of the reason why we used to be very conservative about renaming accounts with many, many edits. Server load, yes, but also the fact that it can take sometime for all the changes to take place. And there's nothing to do now but wait. Redux (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually did one that never fully re-attributed the edits, instead it basically split them. There's not much way around it anyway, no one is going to go in and fix them by hand, so patience is the only option. Renaming should be viewed more like the cherry on top, not an entitlement. - Taxman Talk 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments bordering at WP:NPA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3

At this RfA there is some discussion at an oppose !vote case by Husond (talk · contribs) whether this consists of a personal attack or not and how it should be handled if it does. I think a crat should review the case and see if it should be acted upon (removed or relocated to the talk page or anything). Regards SoWhy 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the community has done an ample job of tearing down the oppose (and while I find Husond's "I don't have the time yet" to be a plausible enough excuse, he could have toned his post and provided at least a few diffs; the people that I dislike on here I could probably find diffs for rather easily), and don't think there's much for the bureaucrats to do. There's a lot of bad blood there between both of them, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought maybe all that off-topic stuff could be moved to the talk page. I requested it here as the crats' job description includes RfAs and their procedure and I think an admin moving comments by other admins might lead to wheel-warring and bad blood while a crat might enjoy a little more trust to be an uninvolved party. Regards SoWhy 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, an excellent point. I'll have to recuse myself, however, as I consider Husond a friend (his advice on my editor review I feel gave me the feedback necessary to eventually become a sysop and bureaucrat). Any other takers? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree and have moved the all the discussion, with the exception of one brief reply from the candidate, to the talk page. Warofdreams talk 00:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Warofdreams. :-) SoWhy 09:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I concur with this action. Should Husond actually bring those DIFFs - and I'm hoping it isn't a big 'if' - it should be brought back to the main discussion, perhaps as Further Discussion. Last week, (I think it was) Durova offered an equally harsh appraisal of another user, but their assessment was backed up with DIFFs, which "legitimized" the harshness. Husond has offered some harsh words. Its on him to now either add the diffs to support those arguments, pull the comments back to a simple oppose, or face the consequences. Maybe its unfair of me, but I think we need to hold admins to a higher standard where their judgment is questioned. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
...and just to make this situation a little bit stranger, Ecoleetage has retired. As a result, I closed the RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CHU Bot and incomplete "reason" field

Any objection to asking the Bot to monitor for this? If not, can it? --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done It had been in the bot in the past, but I removed it due to false positives with something like "Reason for requested renaming Xclamation point 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC) i want a new name". When I removed it, it was a simple mental lapse that I could fix it. Xclamation point 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions sought

Bureaucrats, and interested onlookers, I'm curious in your thoughts on this blog post. Giggy (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Raagio → Raaggio - strange bot event

On 3 Jan 09 I changed User:Lex94 to User:Raagio, as per the user's request. Today I changed User:Raagio to User:Raaggio to fix the editor's accidental spelling mistake. Interestingly, the ClueBot reverted one of the automatic moves (and then gave me a kind warning). What is the best way to revert or undo ClueBot's revert of my move? Is the easiest way that comes to mind the best way? Or does something more complicated have to take place? Kingturtle (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely not known as a bot expert, but from my recent reading, if I recall correctly, ClueBot will not revert the same page more than once in a 24 hour period. Not sure if that applies to page moves as well. If it does, though, you should be able to just move the page again and ClueBot won't complain. Useight (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:SOFIXIT, I moved User talk:Raagio/Archive 3 to User talk:Raaggio/Archive 3, ClueBot still hasn't tried anything funny, so I think we may be good to go. Useight (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done! Thank you for doing that. Kingturtle (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Take-home message from Balloonman's RfB

I may be reading this wrong, I'd like input. I don't have an opinion on many of the specific points, but the overall tone of the opposition is that Balloonman has talked too much at RFA, that he's had too big a footprint, that that gives the impression that he's rigidly pushing one set of beliefs about RFA. My personal belief is that he's flexible enough to be a bureaucrat, but that's not why I'm here. I've done quite a lot of yakking in my rationales, myself. I've got a list of links on my User:Dank55/Admins page to every RFA where I gave a rationale that sheds light on my RFA criteria - added 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC), and anyone who reads them (and I know that closing bureaucrats read rationales, in general) will know exactly why I'm voting for or against someone, if something about that candidate is uncontested and IMO decisive. I'm just thinking that if I keep explaining things in detail every time, I'm going to start getting the same reaction at WT:RFA that Balloonman is getting in his RfB. I'm not asking so much for a "ruling" as asking as a friend; should I stop yakking so much in RFAs? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it very hard to predict how RFA/RFB will go. People with very similar wiki backgrounds fare differently. I think a lot of it has to do with how the earliest stages go. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • RfA is like real-world politics - Appear outspoken and you will appear like a threat to others, regardless of intention. There are people who prefer to keep quiet till they achieve power to act out their ideals, some take action where they can, while others prefer talking it out. It really depends on how Serious Business is Wikipedia to you, and whether you assume every editor to think as rationally as you do on RfA. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Dan there are a couple of key differences. First, my action was less than a year ago, when I said that I was originally going to wait until May/June, I was serious because that would be the year mark for my transgression. The ONLY reason why I ran early was because of the sudden disappearance of crats taking time off/leaving the project. Second, my action was one of the best known and most unique crimes committed at RfA---some people will never trust me. Third, when I ran, there were three reasons why I kind of expected this response: 1) the DMHO RfA, 2) my lack of experience at CHU/USURP/BRFA and 3) I am a voice at RfA, and I know that there are people who flat out think I'm wrong. I knew I'd get opposes from the adminship is for everybody crowd.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Dan: "Yakking" in RFA is the only thing that allows it not to be purely head-count. If only everyone were as diligent as you in explaining their votes. By my reading of the opposition you mention, the problem is not so much that Balloonman has and expresses opinions at all, but that his opinions (in the eyes of the opposing voters) do not indicate that he would be the right sort of bureaucrat. It's not the fact of his opinions, but their content. Please, by all means, continue telling everybody what you think on RFA. So long ask you're also willing to revise your opinions in light of convincing reasons to do so, I doubt you'll make a host of enemies. Open and frank conversation over issues like these is vital to the health of the process. — Dan | talk 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Dan, There is yakking and there is communicating. If what you say is pertinent or insightful, and said tactfully, then it is useful to the project. Kingturtle (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the support. I guess I don't need to be so worried; OTOH, especially since Giggy is now carpet-bombing requests for rationales, I'm going to start saying sometimes "per my previous rationales" and give the link to my admin page. I've tried to be detailed and honest with my rationales, and I think by now they cover most of the cases that come up in RFAs. I agree that it's a good idea for as many people as possible to be honest and detailed, but I feel like I've had a bit more than my share of air time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfB and NOTNOW and SNOW

Balloonman's RfB made me think about NOTNOW and SNOW, in general (not just applying to this nom) and how they apply to RfB.

I have complex feelings about NOTNOW and SNOW for RfA, but for any reasonable candidate for RfB (subjective alert on "reasonable", of course, but let's say eg any sysop) I would prefer us not to pre-empt RfB closures under NOTNOW and SNOW. (This does not include withdrawn nominations, of course)

I think we should give these candidates due credence for their experience and understanding of process and that so long as they want the nomination to remain open, we should leave it until closing time. They may garner useful additional feedback along the way. Assuming that we're sparing their blushes smacks of patronising valued contributors who're better placed than us to decide how much they're blushing and RfBs are few enough to not warrant falling foul of "wasting the community's time", an argument I'm rarely persuaded by at RfA in any case.

Sorry if these words are somewhat rambling - I'm not feeling too great (again) and I'm finding it difficult to organise my thoughts. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was having a similar thought. An admin has already gone through the RfA process (at least once) and knows what he/she's getting into with an RfB. It is a matter of respect to the editor to leave the nomination open until its 7-day conclusion, and to leave the decision of closing it early up to the nominee. Kingturtle (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
In general, I think RfBs should be left up to the candidate. Early closures at RfA are almost entirely inexperienced users who don't really have a good idea what RfA is about. Assuming the person running for RfB is an admin, they almost certainly know what they're getting into. Enigmamsg 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It would also appear that the RfB is slowly starting to increase in support, so I would not close it now. Xclamation point 16:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note I'm talking generalities, not just about this specific RfB. --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt this RfB will end of the requisite 85% mark that it needs to be considered in the discretionary range, but I think we can trust Balloonman to know when he wants to withdraw, especially because the RfB is currently at over 50%. Snow closing Husond's RfB at 17% might not have been an awful idea, but keeping this current one open (at 60%) at least allows the candidate a chance to learn what the community wants for a future Crat Candidate.
In the future, if an RfB denigrates into massive pointless bickering at less than 50%, I'd say that a crat should have leeway to close it. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we generally reserve that for RfA candidates that may not know enough themselves to withdraw. RfBs should never be closed using NOTNOW or SNOW -- if anything, the candidate may choose to let it run to get an idea of what to work on for next time. Having already passed an RfA, we don't need to worry about sensitivity to harsh criticism, since anyone who submits an RfB understands what they're getting into. Andre (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I can quite confidently state, ownership issues to one side, that WP:NOTNOW was never even vaguely intended to be cited if an RfB was closed early. That would be linking to the title because it sounds right, without reading the essay. Pedro :  Chat  18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
People quite often do that with WP:IAR, saying that it tells them to ignore all the rules, or WP:POINT when people make a point in an odd way but don't disrupt. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
(off-topic) Totally agree, and that was exactly my thought process. The most common error I see is linking WP:LEGAL when anyone mentions anything legal even though there is no threat. People linking to essays, guidleines and policies because the title fits would allways be well advised to actually read the words. I suspect that doesn't actually happen in a number of instances. Pedro :  Chat  08:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Andre, I disagree that RfB's should never be closed using SNOW. I think Husond's closure was perfect example of crat discretion. Similarly, if say that first day on my RfB, I had garnered 40 opposes and only a handful of supports. All the opposes were citing the same thing and it had turned into a mudslinging activity where nothing was being added to the discussion. And I hadn't posted in a while (obviously offline/sleeping?) I would have appreciated somebody stopping the bloodbath. But as long as useful information is being provided and it isn't vindictive, I agree. But on RARE occassions, I can see SNOW being invoked.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for my two cents, I'll probably be closing mine tomorrow... wait and see if there is any other items that come in. So far, it's been an interesting journey... you really get to learn what others think of you (the good, the bad, and the ugly.) With a few exceptions, I appreciate all the comments I've received (there are 2 or 3 which I feel are completely wrong) but so far nobody has gotten truly nasty or vindictive. IMO, I think that is the key. With Husonds, if I remember correctly, that one was turning ugly. Once it turns ugly, and no new information is being added, the usefulness is expired. Mine hasn't turned ugly, but it is reaching the point where nobody has added anything insightful. Those would be my two criteria for a SNOW close---and perhaps an the !vote around 1/3 support... if I was getting hammered at 1/3rd support, I probably would have closed this earlier.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC) PS, as I will be closing it myself, I would love for feedback from any crats who might have something insightful to add. I don't see this going the full week.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:NoSeptember/crat stats

Majorly kindly began the Dec-Jan update of the page, but is a little swamped by work off-wiki.

If anyone would like to finish that update before the end of this month, they'd earn my admiration. Especially if they can do it without swearing even once. (I'll accept any such claim on trust) --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have the time to do it, it's just really tedious. My own data on RFAs is hardly complete as it is. MZMcBride simplified the table down a bit though, so it might be a little easier. I don't know how WJBscribe managed to do it all the time :) Majorly talk 15:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I make no promises to do anything without swearing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is from Special:Log/rights it seems like it would be fairly trivial to automate. Please don't tell me somebody manually goes through passed RFAs to figure this out. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
That was pretty much my thought as well, though I don't want to volunteer to write the script. Dragons flight (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not difficult to go through the log. It's difficult updating the table because it's so large, and there's so many numbers to consider. Majorly talk 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If you three and X! put your heads together, I can't imagine it would be other than a success. --Dweller (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interested in opinions

...at WT:RFA#Doing RFA twice, 3 months apart (on the assumption that no one who is still sane is watchlisting WT:RFA). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fairly safe to say that the 'crats have wt:rfa on their watch list---at least the ones who have any interest in the subject.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this is not a bureaucrat issue. Majorly talk 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CHU question

Are users generally allowed to change names while under a topic ban? I couldn't find an answer to this at WP:CHU (although there may of course be a page of "crat instructions" I'm not seeing). I ask because I am currently monitoring an editor who's under just such a ban, and who has now asked for help in getting a new user name. This is a valuable editor who makes good contributions outside this one problematic subject area, and I don't want them to be tempted to cause disruption under a new name. Thanks in advance for any help or advice you can offer. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If this user has made a CHU request, please provide under the name change request a brief description of the ban. The betterment and security of Wikipedia supersede a CHU request, but there are instances of privacy and RTV that can come up. Kingturtle (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have now done so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and just make sure the topic ban moves with them. - Taxman Talk 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Crat opinion sought

Wikipedia:Changing_username#Jaakovs_.E2.86.92_MASQUERAID. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU archiving

The Bot archiving is a little puzzling. I think they're ignoring  Not done tags which are preceded by : or *. Am I right? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to some particular cases please? --Chris 12:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure of myself, but the page seems regularly to be clogged with unarchived items, and I unscientifically observed that they tend to be ones with punctuation preceding them. Thinking further, I believe there are several Bots that tidy the page and I now wonder if some of the Bots cope with it and others don't, making it take longer for them to be archived...? --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Mine is the only bot that archives WP:CHU(SUL) (Cobi's archives WP:CHU/U). Not done requests are archived 48 hours after the last timestamp on the request. See the brfa for more info --Chris 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, move along nothing to see here. <blushes> Ahem. Sorry! --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag question

Do we have a preference between Special:Makebot and Special:Userrights? I don't do bot stuff that often, so I can never remember; Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags doesn't say which is preferred, so I thought I'd ask those that are better versed in the ways of bot flagging... EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From a technical side of things Special:Userrights is preferred as Special:Makebot is deprecated and will be removed some time in the future --Chris 10:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Should Special:Makebot be removed from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags, then? Also, maybe a note to the MediaWiki message at the top of Makebot could be added to say "This is deprecated, please use Special:Userrights instead." Although, since I would hope that all Bureaucrats are watching this noticeboard, and they're the only ones who can even see Makebot, I'm guessing that all of the relevant people are already going to know that. Also, a technical question from a technical newbie: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags says that using Makebot "results in bot flaggings being logged separately from other user rights changes"; does this mean that Makebot lists it in the "Bot status" log, and Userrights lists it the "User rights" log?--Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much. Probably someone should change MediaWiki:Makebot-header to include something similar to MediaWiki:Makesysoptext. J.delanoygabsadds 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I would personally prefer Makebot to be used, so the user rights log isn't clogged up, but that's just me personally :) Majorly talk 13:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with you, the separate log is valuable. I suppose though I don't really care what tool I use to do it if the log could be separate or at least searched reliably. Some of the toolserver tools designed to be catch-alls aren't really. - Taxman Talk 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Makebot puts a log entry into the "Bot status" log, which Userrights puts it in the "User rights" log. 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that Makebot is technically obsolete per mw:Extension:MakeBot and given that its author has been inactive for sometime, it would be best to have the sysadmins merge the Bot logs with Userrights (like they did when Makesysop was merged with Userrights, and then turn off the Makebot function. MBisanz talk 13:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently Happy-melon added a deprecation notice last July, which Wbscribe reverted in August, being (as most of us) unaware of its impending doom. I've reverted to Happy-melon's version. Is the merger of the Makebot log to the Userrights log something that should be requested on bugzilla? Or is there some other avenue?--Aervanath (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Bugzilla would be the right method, User:MaxSem had a script to do this before he retired, but I don't know if anyone else has a copy. MBisanz talk 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic, this was just want I was looking for. I've removed Makebot from the 'crat page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Log merger requested: bugzilla:17272--Aervanath (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RMHED reinstating votes from an indef blocked troll

Resolved
 – Reversions have not recurred since this discussion was posted. — neuro(talk) 23:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RMHED has now twice reverted both my and Black Kite's indenting of a indeffed troll's !vote ([12][13]) on the basis that a 'crat didn't indent the vote. Hoping the latest revert by Garion96 sticks, but if it doesn't, could a crat hop along to Root's RfA and indent it? Thanks. — neuro(talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith. Have you heard of it? — neuro(talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No, why thank you for pointing it out to me. Goodness me don't I feel silly now. RMHED (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Which support vote do you mean? --Conti|✉ 23:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think he was talking about this. — neuro(talk) 23:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Well, both the support vote and the oppose vote by the blocked users have been indented now, so I hope everyone's happy. :) --Conti|✉ 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
In general though neuro we have asked non bureaucrats simply to comment on potential sockpuppets and voting irregularities and leave the indenting to bureaucrats. That can help reduce this type of friction. If there has already been conclusive evidence of socking, then feel free to indent and comment to that effect. Otherwise just let us know that the proper channels are being pursued. - Taxman Talk 12:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the question came up on my talk page when I flat-out removed a sock !vote, do we (the bureaucrats) have an official stance and/or personal preference on the two (strike the !vote, or flat-out remove it)? In the case of blocked socks, I'm all for simply removing the comments, as socks aren't part of the community and therefore have no suffrage to participate in the RfX process. New editors tagged with {{spa}} should remain unindented, and we'll just take them into consideration, while editors who are blocked during the course of the RfA should be struck (er, their comments, not they themselves). Am I on the same page as everyone else, or am I just marching to the beat of my own drummer off in the corner somewhere? :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a 'crat, but in my opinion everything you said above would seem pretty standard, with the exception of the comment about blocked editors: I just want to clarify that this should only apply to indef-blocked editors; editors who are given, say, a 1-week civility block are still part of the community. Even in the cases of those who were blocked indefinitely, the fact they were blocked doesn't necessarily mean that their opinion wasn't valid, no matter which section it was in.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find WP:RBI persuasive. It would seem that removing banned users' contributions would be the right thing to do. Otherwise, if banned users think their thoughts might influence an RfA, we only encourage trolling. --Dweller (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If they were banned or blocked BEFORE the RfA started, and are editing RfA in defiance of their ban, or using sockpuppets to get around the block, then absolutely just remove the comments; WP:RBI certainly holds. I'm only wondering about cases where the block/ban began AFTER they contributed to the RfA.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I was responding to EVula. I'd tend to agree that comments made before community sanctions should stand, perhaps with the exception of where the RfX in question is directly connected with the behaviour that led to the ban. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's the same way I was thinking. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

inactive

I'm going to be inactive from now on, so I guess that means one less bureaucrat around. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes, Nichalp. I hope you reconsider soon. You're a valued addition to the team... and only a tiny bit of that is because you promoted me to admin :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
COI violation! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Best of luck in your non-wiki activities, Nichalp. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Nichalp, I'm sorry to see you go. I wish you success and hope you'll rejoin us sooner rather than later. — Dan | talk 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Bye, Nichalp, the wiki won't be the same without you. I wish you the best of your luck in your future endeavors. Xclamation point 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hope all goes well for you. bibliomaniac15 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reconfirmation

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

User left the building [14] Let's leave it alone people. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just can't keep away from the tools. And my math class has been a joke so far (especially for a eight week course), when I need to be inactive, I'll just stay away from a computer. But if I have some time, another adminstrator won't hurt. Secret account 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to say I'm not too excited that this is the second or third time you've given up the bit and asked for it back. That added to the several name changes doesn't help the case, though I do understand avoiding harassment. But if you can confirm there were no controversial circumstances and someone can vouch that you never abused the tools, then I can't see a reason not to give them back. Just please write 100 times on your nearest chalk or whiteboard that you'll never again try to break your wikicrack addiction by giving up the tools. :) PS I cleaned up your logs a bit for you. - Taxman Talk 04:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not under conterversal circumstances. Secret account 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As Taxman has asked for someone to "vouch" for Secret; to the best of my knowledge Secret resigned the bit in good standing, and has never abused his admin tools. Yes I am aware of the name changes. Pedro :  Chat  15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Having been on this wiki since 2004, I could also vouch for Secret. I have always thought his admin work to be above average. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Do not vouch. Jaranda is unstable. I think he has the history of resigning and coming back the most times out of any admin. He has also misused admin tools on occasion, such as the deletion of Mzoli's Meats, which caused a lot of controversy (and the action was completely abusive in an attempt for him to be desysopped.) I do not trust him to be able to delete. "In good standing" only works if the editor continues to behave well. There are several people on the "resigned in good standing" list who have since gone on to have controversies of their own making. Jaranda is such a person, I'm afraid. I'd be extremely unhappy if Secret/Jaranda/whatever is sysopped without an RFA. Majorly talk 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That diff is enough for me to not be comfortable giving back the tools, but more input would be good. - Taxman Talk 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, it is from 2007, so it's not my main concern. I honestly can't remember, but he may have even had an RFA after that incident (which I ended up opposing). It might have been before though. My main issue is that he's completely unstable. I was talking to him about his numerous departures and resignations well over a year ago, so it's not a recent thing. Admins should have some sort of stability, and not resign every other month. Majorly talk 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
While I don't know Secret, have never interacted with them and also don't know whether they have abused their tools, I have to agree with Majorly (yeah, I mean it, Majorly ): I think stability is mandatory for admins. — Aitias // discussion 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that an action from 2007 would prevent a user to regain his admin bit that he resigned in 2009, two years later. There might be concerns here, but they were obviously not enough for ArbCom (or a Steward, ot the community) to do anything about it, right? --Conti|✉ 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about his instability, the abusive deletion is merely an aggravating factor. Majorly talk 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with periods of inactivity. This is a volunteer workforce, so it's not reasonable to require some minimum level of participation. But, repeated cries of "look at me, I'm retiring!" indicate a lack of maturity. A more reasonable person would simply take a break for a month or two without fanfare, if that's what they wanted. Also the deletion log above indicates a lack of maturity. We should not welcome admins who act like kids. Friday (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why does avoiding harassment result in so many -syops? Only to keep requesting it back. Synergy 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a shortage of sysops? At some point changing usernames, resigning and unresigning serve to obfuscate a user's history, giving them multiple chances to make mistakes without facing consequences. This is a case that may be close to, or have even crossed, that line. I oppose a speedy resysopping. Jehochman Talk 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The Mzoli's was a big error in my judgment, but it was almost two years ago. I used the tools before and after since than, with many thousands of deletions, blocks, and so forth. The instability portion was over three years ago as well (2006). I requested desyropping this time because of classes as I'm taking two math classes in one semester and math is my worst subject, and if I fail either or of the classes, I will have to miss a semester of college just for a stupid math class. This isn't a case of look at me I'm quitting because I want attention. If I want to quit, I wouldn't be editing and say nothing in my userpage, like I was inactive most of 2008 after someone discovered the doom building I stayed from my former college. The honest truth is that I'm just going to use the tools part time (at least for this semester), but a experienced part time administrator is more helpful right now. It's a shame that I'm the poster boy for instability. Secret account 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note I re added myself to the former administrators list, with a 1 next to it, I still want to see opinions though on this, especially those I just rebutted. Secret account 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What silliness here. There are three (maybe four) ways to lose your adminship: emergency by steward, ArbCom, self-request, and sometimes recall or community pressure. Only two of those would be considered "cloudy." This is pretty clearly a self-request not under controversial circumstances. As for the assertion by Jehochman that getting a rename is an attempt to obfuscate anything, well that's just absurd. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not need admins with a history of instability, flipflopping between having rights and not, and some dodgy deletions (admittedly from a while back, but still, not good). We should not ignore everything except for the day he resigned, which happened to be a non-controversial one. Majorly talk 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not about whether, in your opinion, Secret will make a good admin or not. This is about whether Secret resigned under controversial circumstances or not. Whether that is the only thing we should be looking at when giving an admin his tools back is something that's probably best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, where the policy can be changed accordingly (if there is any need to). Can we please not turn this into some kind of RFA? --Conti|✉ 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Admins should have trust of the community. Secret does not in my opinion. The fact he isn't an admin is an opportunity to see whether he does have community confidence. As I said, we should not ignore everything apart from the day he resigned. Majorly talk 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some dodgy deletions?, it's only one Secret account 18:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a fairly clear cut situation of somebody who has resigned at their own request, and not under a "cloud". Extending "resigning under a cloud" to mean "did the admin ever do something that anybody disagreed with at any time during his/her tenure as an admin" is ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So even if the admin behaved atrociously after they were desysopped, they can just get adminship back at the click of a button? That seems ridiculous to me, but you're entitled to your opinion on this issue. Majorly talk 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • After? Thus far only one diff has been provided and was dated well over a year ago. Secret's bit was last removed (by request) on 8 January 2009 (less than one month ago). Can you provide a diff to substantiate the claim that Secret "behaved atrociously after [he was] desysopped"? If I'm missing something, I'd be happy to change my stance. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel his flipflopping between adminship and not is a sign of immaturity and instability, and thus unsuited for adminship (in my opinion). Never said Secret was "atrocious", it was an example. Majorly talk 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear Majorly is trying to use this noticeboard as a reconfirmation hearing. He even said so himself, "The fact he isn't an admin is an opportunity to see whether he does have community confidence." This is wholly unacceptable. Please re-admin the account. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is community confidence wholly unacceptable? Please don't readmin unless there is consensus to do so - thanks! Majorly talk 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While Majorly brings up valid concerns, I am of the opinion that if a person gave up the bit when the policy clearly stated that all they had to do was request it back, then unless there is clear (recent) evidence that they shouldn't get it back, then they should. I am a strong believer that when somebody quits or goes on an extended (3+ month) break, then they should give up the bit. If we start demanding reconfirmations, or even allude to such, then nobody will give up the bit. (This ties into my belief that gaining AND losing the bit should be no big deal----but if you make one side or the other a big deal, it becomes such. If we make regaining the bit after a break a big deal, then nobody will step aside.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reconfirmation: not done

  •  Not done For the record, a user coming here requesting their bit back is not the time for a reconfirmation discussion (in so far as mentioning any slights that the sysop may have made during the course of their duties); the only thing that we (the bureaucrats) should concern ourselves with is the background surrounding the removal of the bits. (this suggests that the discussion is entirely within the purview of the bureaucrats, thought the community is welcome to provide evidence for discussion; this is a fancy way of saying "what just happened is pretty much a good thing")
    Fact #1: Jaranda/Secret requested their sysop bit removed,[15] which is usually not an issue. Fact #2: Jaranda has been promoted three times already,[16] which is extremely problematic; we (the bureaucrats) are here as a courtesy to former administrators, not as a privilege. Fact #3: Jaranda's logs show a considerable amount of "drama" (for lack of a better and less polemic phrase) immediately prior to his request.[17].
    These three facts, when taken together, constitute "a cloud." There was a reconfirmation RfA for Jaranda just a few months prior to the Meta request; another reconfirmation will be needed if Jaranda/Secret is to regain their sysop flag. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The 'crats have spoken. Thank you, EVula, for at least now stemming this conversation even if I disagree whether Secret resigned "under a cloud" Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You know you gave links from 2007 right?, We are talking about 2009, and I became a syrop again a month after all the drama happened back in 2007 (didn't cause any drama), and I stayed with the tools thoughout 2008 until 2009, when I desyropped myself in unconterversal fashion because of school. Secret account 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sure EVula is aware of the dates. Useight (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll admit that the renaming doesn't help me when it comes to tracking down what your full history is, and I may have missed something as a result. However, fact #2 remains: the bureaucrats are not here for your personal beck and call. You need to make up your mind about whether you want the tools or not, and just being inactive for a couple of weeks because of school is hardly a reason to get the flag removed.
        Once I get done with a bit more work, I'll poke around a bit more; in the meantime, any other bureaucrat is welcome to "overturn" my {{notdone}} if they feel the new evidence is sufficient; I hold no exclusive claim to the situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Then Mark must not have been aware of all of the issues involved because after September 2007 that clearly should not have been a case of giving the bit back after you gave it up under uncontroversial circumstances. Consider the following for more:

"Resigned uncontroversially"

I think this particular phrase is problematic. There are many administrators who resigned "uncontroversially" in 2005/6/7, but have since had a very controversial wiki-life, and would not have a hope of passing RFA should they request it. Example, above, Jaranda/Secret resigned (yet again), but not directly following some controversy, so he wasn't under a cloud as such. However, as I wrote above, I would not be able to trust him to delete, and his history of unstability is unsuitable for adminship. I think any admin who wishes to regain the bit, who resigned it "in good standing" should at least post to WT:RFA so that more opinions can be given. Some time should be given for comments (not another RFA, obviously, but something is needed). It's just lucky I was pointed this out, otherwise I might have missed it. Majorly talk 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give difs from less than a year ago please. Secret account 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No. You know exactly what I mean when I say you're unstable. No need for diffs. Majorly talk 17:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this would lead to the general attitude of "Never, ever resign your admin bit", which certainy isn't what we want. If there really are problems, there are ways to deal with it. Creating some kind of ad-hoc RFA for every uncontroversial resignation isn't a good idea, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There would only be a problem if the admin had a history of instability, or problematic editing. Majorly talk 18:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Before Lara resigned, the one thing I urged her to do was to keep her +sysop because of nonsense like this. Time goes by, people change their minds and wish to return to adminship, and suddenly old grudges re-emerge and a noticeboard is being treated as a reconfirmation hearing. No, there's absolutely no requirement to post WT:RFA and there never should be. That page is a shithole that I wouldn't wish on most of my enemies. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't nonsense. Lara didn't resign every other month. Lara didn't have 8 RFAs. Lara didn't abuse or misuse admin tools. If she came by today, I'd have no issue whatsoever with her being resysopped (as I wouldn't have an issue with most people). Majorly talk 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You wouldn't, I wouldn't, but I have zero doubt that some would... she was a lightning rod because she spoke her mind. I know that if I were to resign, it is proposals such as the above that would lead me not to give up the bit. I DO support changing the policy going forward, but I do believe that there has to be a grandfather clause for people who gave up the bit under the belief that they could simply request it back when the time came.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes back in 2006, and then Mzoli's, nothing this year or last year, or for most of 2007 (Mzoli's exempt) though, resigning because of school isn't a definition of unstable. Secret account 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You've resigned how many times now? Plus how many "retirements"? Majorly talk 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And you are avoiding my question Secret account 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I answered it. See above. Majorly talk 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really about you, it's about the general case. You were just mentioned as an example. Majorly, perhaps you could withdraw the example so we can discuss the important matter? This specific case can be discussed in the section above. --Tango (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly has a point here. We generally don't bother making a fuss over people doing things wrong unless there is actually something to be gained from it (this is a good thing). That means that when someone does something that would be bad enough to get desysopped, but not bad enough to be banned, and they're not an admin, we pretty much ignore it (we would probably tell them we thing they shouldn't have done it, but that's all). This is absolutely fine in the vast majority of cases, but it falls down when it comes to voluntarily resigned admins. There is really no difference between an admin and a voluntarily resigned admin - both have access to the same tools, one just has to have a word with a crat first. We shouldn't be treating them differently. My suggestion would be to just do away with the rule that says former admins can get their bits back (this should not be retroactive, of course) - there is nothing to be gained by resigning anyway (unless you are involved in controversy, but that's irrelevant), so why not just keep the bit and not use the tools? Then when an inactive admin does something wrong, we can go through the same desysoping procedures as with an active admin (this should happen fairly rarely anyway, since you can't abuse the admin tools without using them, and that's the usual reason for the desysoping). --Tango (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tango, I think once resigned, all admins should have to go through RFAs. Either you want to be an admin, or you don't. If you don't want to use tools, don't use them, simple as that. Resignation normally indicates something permanent, not coming back after a month asking for them back. RFA will establish community trust, if you want tools again. Majorly talk 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see what we'd gain from this, apart from encouraging every admin not to resign, ever. --Conti|✉ 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Resigning is good if you need to take a break for school, work, family issues, and so forth and you are too addicted from the tools. That what I, and a few other administrators do. As for me I don't want this to be a drama shitfest, I already have alot of that, so I decline from getting my tools back for now at least. I really think a WP:RFC on me is the best opinion, similar to Majorly's six months ago, to see what I really did wrong. I'll create one myself. Secret account 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend you didn't. Just request adminship through the normal means and be done with. It'll be drama, but an RFC will be horrible. Majorly talk 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you don't have the self-control to avoid using the tools, then, quite frankly, that's your problem. If you get so addicted, then perhaps you shouldn't be an admin in future. Just as there is no cure for alcoholism, I don't imagine there is a cure for admin-addiction. If it's not a full blown addiction and you just struggle a little with temptation, then perhaps someone could write a script to hide the admin buttons? --Tango (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Good grief; agree with Tango (again): frankly you're digging the hole deeper and deeper, Secret, and giving even more reason to suggest you're unsuited. Majorly talk 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Bleh wrong term. I had the self-control to avoid editing for over six months last year, it's just cases with school I rather not have the tools. Of course that's a big mistake that I need to pay for now. Secret account 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Encouraging every admin not to resign unless they have a good reason to, yes. It don't think that's a bad thing. What we gain is not having bad users getting the bit back just because they weren't bad when they gave it up. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Taking up steward/bureaucrat time just because you can't pull yourself away from the keyboard seems a little...off. Notwithstanding, perhaps a formal reconfirmation WP:RFA might be easier than an RFC. –xeno (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Majorly talk 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
But if we encourage admins not to resign their tools, we won't ever have the situation where bad users would want their tools back, because they would have never given them up in the first place. :) Those bad users would be bad admins in this case, and they'd never have to ask for their tools back, since they didn't let go of them. We'd encourage admin addiction, so to speak. "Cling to it until someone takes it away from you by force!" --Conti|✉ 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
But we have systems in place to deal with bad admins, so I don't see the problem. You speak as if people resigning adminship are actually giving something up, they aren't. They're just putting an extra hoop to jump through between them and the tools - a script to hide admin tools would serve the same purpose. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that, in most cases, there's no reason for admins to resign their tools, and sometimes it's outright silly. But I don't think we should make it harder for admins to get their tools back if they resigned without any controvsery. I just don't see the advantage in that, because - as you say - we do have systems in place to deal with bad admins anyhow. I suppose there might be a case where an admin resigns without any controversy, then becomes a controversial user, and then wants his tools back. But I think our 'crats can deal with such rare cases just fine. --Conti|✉ 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Those are exactly the cases we're talking about. Crats can only deal with them if they have all the necessary information. The requires some kind of review period so people can give them that information. If you really want to let admins resign for no reason, then a fairly simple review period is all that's required (a week in which anyone with an objection can make it, a crat decides if any reasonable concerns have been raised and if they have the former admin has to go though RFA - this review would not be a vote, there would be no chance for people to make statements or votes in support (support is the default, so there is no need), just objections, and the objections need to be serious enough that the crat things ArbCom would think at least twice before rejecting a case regarding them). I think this is unnecessary bureaucracy, though, since there is no need for these admins to be resigning in the first place. --Tango (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll request adminship under the normal means in the future, and without a nominator as well, not now of course. As for the WP:RFC, I'm open to criticism, and the drama will be pointed in my direction instead of the project. See what I could improve to be helpful for the project. Secret account 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Great. A simple resysop has to go to OMG DRAMA. Now Secret has to go through an RFA that doubtless will be OMG DRAMA x umpteen. Perhaps no-one noticed the ANI plea this morning due to the CSD backlog. Majorly, I'm particularly disapointed in you, given your own desire to have the bit back to help out yet you deny it to others. Yes, we don't want admins resigning / coming back / resigning ad infinitum. Yes adminship is not some kind of "old boys club". But dear me these two threads seem to be drama for the sake of drama. Pedro :  Chat  19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Our bureaucrats/stewards have better things to do with their time than to be messed about by Secret who can't make up his mind whether he wants to be an admin or not. How do we know he's not going to resign again?
I don't think I'm really comparable to Secret in this respect, but of course it's totally up to the bureaucrats, not me, in this decision, so whatever they do I'll have to live with, and hope Secret doesn't retire/resign again. Majorly talk 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
How does his potential to resign again affect this request to flip the bit? If he does resign again I'm sure I for one will be far less vocal and supportive in getting the bit back. Right now WP:FORMER grows ever longer and our active admin count hovers round 940 (a low of at least a year).
I see more good than harm, nothing outside process and precendent, and as importantly nothing that will form a precedent. For these reasons just give him the bit back and lets move on. Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
He's done this before though. Last time I may have had more confidence in him, but he quit yet again, and is back less than a month later. Oh well. You're right though. We should move on. I have other things to do :) Majorly talk 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Give it back but no more of this business. –xeno (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I would also be happy for him to be repromoted with the promise he does not resign for no good reason again. It is starting to become a joke, honestly. Majorly talk 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine, then when he requests that his tools be removed, it is done with the understanding that if he wants to get them back then he would need to go through an RfA again. Trust me, he'll think twice before giving them up.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thing is, I've asked him to stop resigning and coming back in the past, and to just keep the tools but not use them. This was most likely around his last (8th) RfA in July 2007. I don't know if he promised anything but he really ought to now. Majorly talk 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, if he gives it up, then it should be done with the clear knowledge that he won't get it back just by asking, I'm just not comfortable changing the rules after the fact and unilaterally on one person. It would be one thing if we made it for all admins who gave up the bit, but I'm not comfortable with setting a precident that might be applied to anybody after the fact.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Majorly talk 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Secret, based upon the above discussion, would you agree that if you ever gave up your bit again, that you would have to go through an RfA?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this matters. It's up the crats- they'll do what they do. Personally I don't have any problem at all with crats using a bit of discretion- I don't think they should ever promote anyone they think was (or would be) a bad admin. Friday (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Then the proposal is simple. As I noted above we are not creating any precedent. We are also not creating a consensus. Simply that we need a crat to resysop an account, that has been resysoped without controversy before, and that said account has made a commitment as above that is not relevant to this resysop but would be binding at a later date. Surely we have a bureaucrat brave/sensible enough just to do what has been done in the past in respect of regranting the tools. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it would be a different story if somebody were to say, "Secret only stepped down because he was involved with a controversy at ANI that was going to result in his being desysopped" or "Since Secret left, he has been warned multiple times for Editing warring and using socks." As is, this seems pretty straight forward.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed a number of poor or at least questionable AfD closes that make me opposed to restoring adminship. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rubber-Band_Man_(Static_Shock) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mainframe_(C.O.P.S.) clearly had no consensus to delete either. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock) no explanation was provided as to how the three deletes trumped the three keeps, two merges, and one redirect, especially when the nomination was a copy and paste applied to numerous articles and the deletes either repeat the nomination practically verbatim or are of a WP:JNN nature. In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sennon and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schutzwald nearly everyone seemed okay with at least a redirect. Moreover, one of his last closes is under review with several admins and editors in good standing arguing to overturn. Thus, I am concerned that some of these discussions are being closed out of personal bias rather than a neutral read of the discussions and as such we are losing content as a result. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And consensus was deletion in all these AFDs, AFD isn't a vote count, if I didn't do the redirect, oh well that's an editing concern. And the DRV are 50% - 50% right now, if we desyrop every adminstrator that had a closure overturned in AFD, there wouldn't be hardly a adminstator left. Don't get your personal bias against me involved here. Secret account 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus to delete any of those and I can't see how anyone could have read that. I would not say there was a clear consensus to keep either, but certainly none to delete. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, that's a bit irrelevant here. If this was an RfA, then your points would be valid but we're really just talking about whether Secret's resignation was under controversial circumstances. Black Kite 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's relevant, because if we are discussing re-giving someone admin tools, we should consider how he has used them. As he's resigning while a DRV with a good deal of participation is underway on one of his closes. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. Re-read the thread. It's not about that. Please do other editors the courtesy of actually reading what the conversation is about before sliding in your comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's about whether or not there are circumstances that suggest resigning under a cloud or misusing tools that suggest restoration of tools should not happen. People cited above that when he previously resigned it was after the pointed deletion of the Mzoli's Meats article. I am showing that since being given the tools back there have been other biased closes and that even while this discussion is underway a good segment of the community is concerned about such bias in another close. These show that it wasn't merely 2007 in which these concerns existed. Thus, my comments are in a direct response to the discussion above. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a discussion about general policy. At the moment, the policy is clear and eVula has done his/her best to follow it and the matter is closed. We do need to discuss the policy for the future, though (although this probably isn't the best place for it). --Tango (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another issue

Regarding this, from past personal experience, I am under the impression that we cannot in effect vanish and start over. He is simultaneously evoking right to vanish, while saying he will come back with a hidden username. As some here probably remember, I was strongly given the impression by many people that we are not allowed to do that, i.e. if we vanish, we cannot come back starting over with a new account. Rather we must return with our old edits and blocks public. As I was told I can rename, but must keep my block log and edit history from my old name. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue for ANI, not BN.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As long as there is no way to link the two accounts there is nothing we can do about it, so there is no point having a rule against it. In the past people have "vanished", started a new account, let a few people know it's them and then got all the privileges earned under the previous account (including adminship, as I recall). That is completely unacceptable. Of course, the "right to vanish" is a complete misnomer, it isn't a right, it's a courtesy we afford users in good standing. If somebody abuses it, then we just ignore it and deal with the situation in whatever way is appropriate. --Tango (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree and would welcome debate. However please don't edit archived discussions as you did above, particularly when you indicate that this in not the proper venue within that edit. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice the archive until after I posted, however it is rather inappropriate to archive an ongoing discussion. All that's happened is the discussion has continued in a new section. Stifling discussion never got anyone anywhere. --Tango (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not well done

Have to say, this was not well handled by the bureaucrats. There is a reason, I think, that the criteria for resysop are fairly clear. It's to avoid nastiness like you see above. There should be no bias against administrators temporarily resigning the tools during a period when they don't need them. Granting the bit back is not a great deal of work or a serious burden on whatever bureaucrat happens to voluntarily respond to the request. There is some irony that previous resysops and name changes have been held against someone, since both require the assent of a bureaucrat.

I don't blame Jaranda from withdrawing from this mess, given how it was turning into a reconfirmation RfA right here on BN, but I wish EVula had got his facts fully straight when posting the big shiny {{notdone}}. He did say he was going to look into it and come back, but I think not even looking at the logs for the current account is unacceptable even as a first pass - particularly if you're going to be posting a decision.

What does this say to other administrators? Two things: One, don't resign your bit (hope you have a good password!) and two... If you want it back, ask a friendly 'crat on IRC. Avruch T 23:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


ZOMG IRC. I think any sensible bcrat would not accept such a request on IRC. I'd like to ask this question: would you let a former admin turned vandal, who resigned totally uncontroversially, become an admin just at the click of a button? The analogy is the same here. Secret has shown clearly how unsuited he is to adminship, and people are demanding he be promoted anyway? Unbelievable. The fact he isn't an admin is good so we don't need to go through the pain-staking process of removing him. Majorly talk 23:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone on this page is 100 percent familiar with your point of view on this subject, and by my posting you can infer that I disagree. Avruch T 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
...so please drop the stick and move on =) –xeno (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I should hope they are by now :) Majorly talk 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Avruch here. Being desysopped under a cloud is when you are going to be forcibly desysopped, or there is a real possibility of being desysopped by arbcom. This was not the case with Secret - he was desysopped under non-controversial circumstances. Nothing he's done since he was desysopped would have led to a desysopping by arbcom - if he's have not resigned, he'd still be an administrator at this point in time. If Secret wants the bit back and the crats are still not going to grant it, I suggest he emails the arbitration committee as I'm sure they will grant his request. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Could I have done a bit more research? Yes. Was my initial round research complicated (and possibly compromised) by the multiple usernames? Yes. Did I specifically state that any bureaucrat could "overturn" my {{notdone}} if they found information that was contrary to my (seemingly definitive) statement? Yes. Did any bureaucrat do so? No.
Your "what does this say" statement is one of the things that can be taken away from the situation. The other is "don't ask for superflous bit removal and granting over and over and over and over." I'm still more than willing to be "overridden" by any bureaucrat that feels I was in error. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's only been 2 hours, and in the mean time look what happened? Avruch T 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, I felt like I was being treated like a banned editor or an extremely abusive administrator here on the subpage and that can be very irritating for just about everyone. Just step on my shoes in this situation. I just wanted the tools back to offset the administrator backload during the few days of the week I'll be editing. I wanted to focus on my math classes and that's why I requested removal of the tools. But my first math class isn't as bad as I thought it would be, and I noticed I was still editing.

I was experienced enough with the tools, and I had no prior abuse of the tools other than Mzoli's and I apologized to Jimbo soon after. So I decided to make a simple request for the tools back. But instead I was treated poorly, and being accused of stupidity and concerns that happened years back, and anyone familiar with me for a while knows how bonanzas I get when I get involved in RFAs and similar issues and if you don't know (see my prior history with them, and my "instability" mainly involved them). Also my "instability" while I was a administrator (Mzoli's aside), was because of severe harassment I was receiving.

Other than that, I was one of the most active administrators in the project, and most of you guys know that. Just because people think I have "behavior issues" doesn't mean I'm going to go on a massive rampage and delete everything and so forth. It's a shame that I became the posterchild of immaturely in the project. I apologize for my behavior here, but I also need a apology from a couple of editors here who made this a lynching fest before I even think about coming back at all. Secret account 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxman's first step was prudent, while also being very helpful and supportive. And I support EVula's decision. A reconfirmation RfA would be best. The nastiness seen above was not created by any bureaucrat. It was the incendiary comments and the vendetta-like tenacity. Remember, your own dignity hinges on your ability to maintain the dignity of others. Sure, you may be right, but you can still allow the person affected to have their dignity. Kingturtle (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I agree with Avruch and disagree with Taxman, EVula, and Kingturtle. The policy is that admins may have their bits back if they resigned uncontroversially. There is no limit placed on the amount of times this may be done. What I would really like to know is who keeps taking the bit away from Secret if he's going to keep wanting it back. That said, I would gladly perform this resysop and "overturn" the bureaucrat decisions above if requested to by Secret via talk page, email, or here, since I will be only acting within policy to honor resysops for uncontroversial resignations. Andre (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Bravo. I agree... unless there is something that has arisen since he stepped down, such as vandalism/3RR, then resysopping should be automatic---under the current rules/policies. Now, if we want to change those rules (which I think would make sense) then we need to revisit them.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The difference here is the last time he requested the bit back he had given it up under controversial circumstances. My question is are people not noticing that part or not feeling it matters? People are acting like there is a hard and fast policy to give the bit back no matter what, but that's not the case. Consensus on this noticeboard has been that bureaucrats can use their discretion as to whether there were controversial circumstances or not. My feeling is the circumstances before the previous resignation added to the rest are that I would not be comfortable resysopping now without an RfA. But if others feel they are because the previous issues don't apply that's fine. - Taxman Talk 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So, as I said I would do (though I get the sense that nobody bothered to pay attention to it, given the amount of "you're wrong" comments I've received versus "this will help you better understand the situation" comments, of which there were none), I've done my best to map out all the relevant links to sort out this mess. You can see it at User:EVula/timeline. Given that much clearer map of events, and acknowledging the fact that I was unaware of the third username when I made my initial declaration of {{notdone}}, I feel more comfortable with Secret getting the bit back; as the timeline shows, nothing of merit happened in the whole of 2008 (and contrary to the insinuation above, the exact time elapsed between the events is irrelevant; it was the seeming "bit removal directly preceeding the request for it back" aspect that was the problem). Before, it looked like there was a straight jump from the Mizoli's deletion to now; as that's not the case, I'm comfortable reversing my own declaration. I greatly appreciate the support of Kingturtle and Taxman, but given that my initial "ruling" (is there a better word? I don't like that phrase here) was based on incomplete evidence, I don't feel that it should stand. If Secret is still interested, I can fulfill the request (or, as I've said numerous times, another 'crat can do it), but given his nebulous retirement state, I don't know if it would even be welcome at this stage.

On a personal level, though, I have to once again express my dislike of repeatedly having the flags removed and then asking for them again. It definitely calls into question the judgement of the one request... but those questions are irrelevant in this matter. The coming back as another username and getting the flag back then is definitely something that I don't think should have happened in the first place, but that's my personal opinion, and not something I feel comfortable enforcing in any official capacity.

The lesson in all of this: if you're going to ask for your sysop bit back, provide some blasted diffs for everything when you ask. Had Secret posted the Meta diff of his asking for the bit to be removed, very likely none of this would have happened. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment came across as just a "you're wrong" comment. Part of what I wrote was critical of your comment, yes. (Since the current account is the account that requested resysopping, it struck me as strange that it wasn't included in your analysis. Anyway, moving on...) I didn't intend for my criticism to be applied purely to you, though. Managing a resysop so that it is limited drama can be tough, I can see that, but it should be the goal. To me it looked like a lot of people went off the reservation, and the 'crats involved didn't reel things back in at all. I'm glad you've looked into it as you said you would and reconsidered. The reason I think folks didn't elaborate on the details that you didn't initially include is because it looked (looks?) to be moot. Thanks for sticking with this despite that potential mootness. Avruch T 04:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
My respect for you has just increased a notch.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks EVula.
I saw this request when it first landed and went to check the history before commenting. In hindsight I should have left a comment to the effect of requesting this be put on pause until we were sure that the needed facts were all on the table. I thought that I knew all the facts of the matter, and it turns out I did know all the relevant facts, but I didnt know that I knew.
Your exclamation that resysops should be accompanied with adequate documentation is sensible, but by the same token ... the above mess shouldnt happen when the documentation hasnt been provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitary break/question for taxman.

In the above section you wrote, The difference here is the last time he requested the bit back he had given it up under controversial circumstances. My question is are people not noticing that part or not feeling it matters? But in the initial comments you wrote, But if you can confirm there were no controversial circumstances and someone can vouch that you never abused the tools, then I can't see a reason not to give them back. To which several people indicated that they were unaware of any issues. The issues that were raised by Majorly and others, IMO, were not germane to the last time he gave up the bit. EG citing issues from 2007, some questionable AFD decisions, and other issues that as far as I can see did not result in any RfC/ArbCOM actions. Nor, as far as I can see, there was no movement to strip him of his tools if he didn't step down. So when he stepped down, there was no indication that he shouldn't expect to be able to get the tools back by simply asking for them. Between the time he stepped down and now, as far as I know, there has not been any flagarant abuse/misconduct that would strip him of the tools. He hasn't been engaged in wheel warring or vandalism. If my summary of the facts is accurate, then I don't think what I've seen is germane to the 'crats actions. Just because a person might have been a controversial admin, or even a bad admin, if they left under their own power and in good standing, then it isn't the 'crats job to legisilate new policies. Now, if we want to change the policy, and have some sort of mini RfA to reinstate the tools, I'm in favor of that. But I did not like change as I saw it. Now this is, contigent upon my impressions being accurate. So my question for you, is, am I missing something? Is there a piece to the puzzle that you are referencing above that I failed to summarize? Is the controversial piece the one where Raul granted him the tools back, and some people question that action? Because if it is, then now is not the time to address that, that should have been addressed then.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 16:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was addressed by some editors at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive313#For_what_its_worth.2C_this_was_a_bad_move who expressed their opposition/concern. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That was 16 months ago, he was an admin for a while since then. If there was a problem, it should have been addressed then, not 16 months later. I don't know if it was a mistake then, but the fact that he served as an admin for what, a year plus since then? If his reinstatement a 16 months ago was in error, that should have been challenged, the fact that it was allowed to stand for 16 months, indicates to me that it shouldn't be used today as rationalization to deny the bit now.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it still being discussed now either? He invoked his right to vanish and posted a message that he wants everyone to let it drop and that he is not coming back? Shouldn't we respect that and archive all these threads? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Post mortem discussions of problems and mistakes can be extremely useful; even though they often can't resolve past problems, they have the potential to prevent or mitigate future problems. We don't necessarily know how bureaucrats and others will react to this sort of event before it happens, nor do they. Once it does and the reaction is there for all to see, it becomes time to learn and discuss and improve. Avruch T 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, just for the sake of the post mortem. Yes, the biggest piece you missed is the part you didn't quote out of what I said and that is that the consensus developed on this noticeboard was that bureaucrats have the discretion to decide if there have been controversial circumstances. While you don't feel previous abuse of the tools should apply, I tended to feel that it could given the whole picture. That is something reasonable people can disagree on. I've since been made aware that the previous arbcom's position and that of at least some sitting arbcom members is that re-RfA's should be avoided much more strenuously than the consensus that we had been working under. The opinions expressed were that unless someone had specifically avoided arbcom sanctions by resigning or was heading toward them, they shouldn't have to go back through RfA. I'm not really in full agreement with that position, but since it has been partly echoed here as well we can take that into account now for future decisions. But the point is that opinion hadn't been expressed by enough people during the discussions on this page so we couldn't take it into account in the consensus that developed. So I believe we did the best we could under the existing consensus and now we can move forward with the evolving one and hopefully do better next time. A bit more wiki love all around would go a long way too. A number of people did not contribute in as positive manner to this discussion as they could have. There's lots of great things happening on the wiki and opportunities to fix things. Lets focus on those and have at them. - Taxman Talk 12:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin reactivation

Please +sysop me. I resigned in good standing. Thatcher 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and nothing problematic during or since tenure. Majorly talk 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. rootology (C)(T) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Very good. Chillum 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Enjoy. --Deskana (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Dang, now I'll have to behave. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you around again. bibliomaniac15 23:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Problematic rename resulted in edits not being re-assigned

Rlevse processed a rename for me on January 21 which was somewhat problematic resulting in me being unable to login until I snuck in through the global account on another wiki... The problem is that the edits have still not been re-assigned save for a few days in July '08. I left a message for Brion but I gather he's busy with more pressing concerns; does anyone know who else I might be able to contact to have the edits re-assigned from xenocidic to xeno? thanks, –xeno (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you use IRC, you might try asking in #wikimedia-tech. I'm not sure if this is a problem requiring a developer or one that could be fixed by 'crat tinkering, but that channel is a good place to ask for insight. Avruch T 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
More than one crat has looked at this. It needs dev help. This is not uncommon in a rename with lots of edits (like over 5000). — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I submitted a bug report two weeks ago regarding this matter. I added more examples to the report today, but the report remains unassigned. Kingturtle (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I poked around in the IRC channel but no traction just yet. I'll keep an eye on the bug report... Thanks, –xeno (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Usually you have to just be patient. Jan 21 was a long time ago, but I have a feeling the next time a rarely run cron job or maintenance process runs, you will have the edits reassigned. Andre (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if its not unusual for things to take this long, I can wait. What confused me was why a 4 day period (July 3 thru 6 if i recall correctly) would get re-assigned but nothing else... /shrug –xeno (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this in the database this evening, hopefully not breaking anything. I didn't do recentchanges, as it'll drop off in a few weeks anyway. — Werdna • talk 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah good man. cheers, –xeno (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another possible case

Politizer (talk · contribs)'s edits do not seem to have been re-attributed to Rjanag (talk · contribs) either; perhaps this is a systematic problem. Skomorokh 03:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Bizarre. The edit counter lists Politizer's account as having one edit, but Special:Contributions/Politizer says otherwise. Maybe just an issue with the cache? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that when my name was first changed, it took several days before the reports showed me as having more than 100+ edits. Although the number of edits for Balloonman instantly disappeared!---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Job queue issue perhaps. The job queue is pretty broken at the moment, but I think we're getting there wrt fixing it. — Werdna • talk 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Syjytg

Could a 'crat take a look at this and this for me? Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I take WP:BITE very seriously (...and that's not a criticism of anyone else). If the editor isn't persuaded by WP:NOTNOW, I've given him a gently worded opportunity to withdraw the nomination himself. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to go offline and it seems that the candidate has not yet responded to my message on his talk page. I've looked through his edits and cannot find any reason given for wishing for the RfA to run its course. --Dweller (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The main harm I can see at this point in allowing it to continue is the effort exerted by well-meaning editors who will close (and/or oppose) in the meantime rather than contributing elsewhere. However, it's not at all clear that closure by a bureaucrat will result in any different response from Syjytg anyway. Maybe letting it go another half day or a day will establish consensus more clearly for the candidate.  Frank  |  talk  16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd also want to limit the frustration a new editor has, with the hope that he will stay and keep contributing. More opposes may equal more frustration. Useight (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree, but this editor is not listening. There have been numerous attempts to do exactly that; the RfA has been untranscluded at least twice and closed at least twice, and Syjytg has either re-transcluded or explicitly requested revert of the closure.  Frank  |  talk  17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let it run. The editor's preference overrules NOTNOW or SNOW. Andre (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a small comment - but I'm afraid I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that an editor's preference somehow overrules SNOW. That goes against why it was written/created. In the spirit of IAR and SNOW, they trump all. It wastes everybody's time typing in "oppose not enough experience, close per NOTNOW". They could be doing something else more productive. It's nothing personal against the applicant. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have it all wrong. IAR trumps nothing because it trumps itself, which is to say that a form of Occam's Razor for productivity should be applied here. The principle of productivity says that YOU should be working on the encyclopedia instead of delisting someone's nomination repeatedly, against their will, when they have politely and explicitly requested otherwise. Though there's nothing wrong with EVula delisting the nomination again as someone who hasn't seen this discussion, if the user puts his nomination back, I would suggest that no one remove it again (unless not having seen this conversation yet, in which case obviously this parenthetical and indeed this sentence is irrelevant). The point is the time-waster is on the process side (delister) not the product side (commenter/editor). The person who comments "not enough experience" on a landslide negative RfA is indeed wasting their time but is probably new to the project and just exploring, not a serious contributor. Whereas someone investing time into Talk: pages and de-transclusion of an RfA which is too soon clearly knows enough about our processes to contribute seriously to encyclopedia work, reverting vandalism, task backlogs, XfD, etc. Andre (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, we're in agreement that IAR isn't quite applicable here; however, I'm uncomfortable with any blanket statement along the lines of "if you weren't doing such-and-such, you'd be editing the encyclopedia." That isn't true. For example, there are times where I swing thru here specifically to check on CHU backlogs, with no intention of doing any encyclopedia work (because I'm on hold at work and have nothing else I can do). However, I also don't think that the candidate is the ultimate authority about whether or not the RfA continues; there's a fine line between respecting someone's wishes and allowing them carte blanche with the process. I think the bureaucrats do have the authority to say "nope, you're done" in cases like this; yes, we should respect the candidate's wishes the vast majority of the time, but we're not 100% beholden to them. (another take on my personal policy: any non-crat RfA closure should be undoable by any editor, including the candidate, but once a bureaucrat has withdrawn the RfA, that's it, game over)
Once I found this topic, I actually did more than just skim the opposers and there was a definite change in tone with the participants. While it started off with just "you don't have experience," it very quickly became "you don't have experience and you're unwilling to accept community feedback by refusing to de-list" (which, in my personal [non 'crat] opinion, is a very important trait). The more I read it, the more I think the RfA needs to remain de-listed, regardless of what Syjytg wants. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Wisdom89, EVula et al. This user is wasting the community's time and hasn't got a chance of passing. Part of a bureaucrat's role is to assess whether there is consensus for someone to pass RFA. If there is absolutely no chance of it happening, as is the case here, there is no point whatsoever in keeping it open for people to unnecessarily pile on (and they will). Since we're apparently getting more and more "not now" candidates, I am glad to see EVula taking a more involved role in this, as a bureaucrat. Majorly talk 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Precisely, and there is absolutely no inherent value in stretching out an RfA that will only garner a bunch of links to WP:ADMIN and a few "moral supports" (which are essentially overly congenial ways of saying "you don't have a chance in hell"). It does the community and the candidate a disservice. If the applicant is interested in keeping an RfA open, it's usually for feedback purposes. This requires the judgment of editors to assess whether any useful feedback can even be obtained. And, it even begs the question whether the candidate should use RfA or editor review for that purpose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Closing an RfA early per NOTNOW, should, IMO be at the behest of anybody who is familiar enough with the process to feel comfortable weighing in on the subject. Similarly, reopening an RfA closed per NOTNOW, should be doable by anybody (especially the candidate) unless it was done by a crat---which is why I advocate non-crat closures of NOTNOW candidates. We close cases as a courtesy to the candidate. (now if they insist on it being reopened, then a crat can step in and close it, in which case it becomes final.)---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you fundamentally, but honestly, does it really matter if an RfA is closed by a crat verses a trusted user? Crats are chosen to weigh consensus, not have more authority over RfA actions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This is one area where I do think a 'crats actions hold more weight. If a crat wants to close an RfA per NOTNOW and allow the user the option to reopen if the user wishes, then I think the crat should explicitly state that the user can reopen the RfA if they want to. This comes from the fact that 'crats were selected to weigh consensus as it comes to RfA's. If a non-crat closes an RfA early, then it is like any other edit on WP, and can be reverted/undone by anybody. If a crat deems that the RfA is going to fail, then their closure of such can be seen as more finalized. Plus, think about it from a practicality side. I close and RfA early, you say, "Hold on, that user is actually pretty good," and revert it. Who is going to object? Will anybody raise a stink over it? Heck, if there is any stink, it will likely be over the person closing the RfA early, not the person who reopened it(witness the recent stink over something similiar.) Now, if a 'crat closes an RfA per NOTNOW, and you revert the crat's actions, suddenly, people will be crawling out of the woodwork saying that you exceeded your authority. If you don't believe that would happen think about the !vote striking issue a few months ago. A crat struck !votes as invalid, and I reverted them because IMHO a 'crat doesn't have the authority strike !votes as invalid during an RfA. But because he used a "crat tag" some people claimed his actions were done as a crat and thus final and criticized me for exceeding my authority. That was over an issue that I think most people agree exceeds 'crat guidelines. Now, closing RfA's is clearly something that falls under 'crat discretion and we (as a community) have explicitly entrusted crats to close RfA's. I would be extremely weary of any non-crat undoing any 'crat closure unless the crat explicitly invited such.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, I understand the reality of the situation, but I'm of the mind that no user should have a finger waved at them simply for undoing the actions of a crat or admin. Yes, crats work intimately with RfA, but that doesn't necessarily grant them procedural control during an RfA. Like you, I am completely against the intervention of a crat during an RfA, to the extent that they may strike certain votes as invalid. There are no invalid votes or comments, unless we're talking about IPs, socks, or malicious NPAs. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In other words, it's not invalidation, but a weighing of argumentative strength after sufficient time has lapsed. Crats aren't referees. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In closing RfA's I would say that they are. Let's use the current case as a case study. If you close the RfA as NOTNOW, and the candidate reopens, that's fine. The user chose to reopen. If I then closed it, and the candidate reopened, that's fine, the user chose to reopen. If USERX closes it a third, time and it is reopened, then that's still fine, the user can reopen. Now EVula closed it as a 'crat. In this case, he properly stepped in as a Crat and excercised his responsibility as a crat to close the RfA... and barring the action of another 'crat (or EVula) the RfA should remain closed. They were explicitly appointed for that role. Now is it possible that EVula could close an RfA as NOTNOW without desiring that finality? Yes. But if I were a 'crat I wouldn't, without explicitly stating that the close is being done as a non-crat action. Heck, as a crat, I would leave it in the hands of non-crats. In theory, you might be right, but this IS the one place at RfA's where we have explicitly given them additional responsibility. And yes, to a certain extent, this does make them into Referees.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the rare time where I believe bureaucrats should be referees. The community can sort out most issues (problematic !votes, SPA participation, etc), but at the end of the day, the people to make the final call in RfA matters are the 'crats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Concur. Again, if a crat wants to close an RfA as a courtesy NOTNOW, that can be reopened, then the crat should state so, otherwise it is more final than a non-crat closure.---I'm Spartacus! The artist formerly known as Balloonman 07:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note The candidate asked EVula to reopen and then without waiting a response, went ahead and reopened it himself. I reverted it. In hindsight, I should have read this discussion first, but my understanding of the bureaucratic role led me to these actions. I'll add that in reading this discussion, it seems I just did almost the exact same thing EVula did. His thoughts on the subject mirror mine. Enigmamsg 05:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've responded to Syjytg, telling him that it will remain closed until he can satisfactorily explain why he wants the RfA to run its full course. In the meantime, I've protected the RfA; it's been closed, and until I (or another bureaucrat) reopens it, it should remain so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

He is referring to the attempt as stated by Eningmaman. I only reverted once. Syjytg (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_13&oldid=1136464255"