Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Vanishing revoked for Laurencebeck

I have merged the history of User talk:Vanished user kweiru239aqwijur3 (which now redirects to the new user talk page) with User talk:Laurencebeck and a notice has been placed on the new talk page (User talk:Laurencebeck) advising the vanishing has been rescinded (as far as possible). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Password reset request

On 18 July, I changed password of my account User:Neo. and unfortunately can't recall some characters. Also I never changed 6 year old email id and I don't have access to that email. To prove that this account is mine I will log in to my other blocked sock account 'Viran' and place similar request on User talk:Viran. I can log in to other sock accounts also to prove my identity. Also I had mentioned my fb id here and I am going to share this this song on my fb account after 1 hour to prove that it is my account. I request you to please reset my password. Thank you. ~neo. 110.226.117.123 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw similar request in archive here. I request you to ask any question to confirm my identity and then please swap this username with my old username "Neo." Thanks! Temporary name for account "Neo." (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick, what did you say? Temporary name for account "Neo." (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think he said "it's amazing how quiet ANI has been since you've been unable to edit". (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Desysop please

Resolved
 – The desysop has been performed and a bunch of Crats have all agreed that RfA will be required for resysop. There's no more to add here. --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please remove sysop from my account. I no longer wish to be an admin here. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 02:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#INeverCry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. INeverCry 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for your service. Unfortunately, given the active arbitration request, I think a new RfA would be required before we'd be able to resysop in the future. 28bytes (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't know whether it makes a difference, but the request was later withdrawn [1] —rybec 00:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It was withdrawn specifically because INeverCry's resignation in the face of a pending desysop made the whole affair moot. All Arbcom could reasonably be expected to do over this was to desysop, which would result in INeverCry needing to go through RFA to regain the bit. Once he resigned in the face of a desysopping request, he has to go through RFA to regain the bit. All continuing with the arbitration would have resulted in was fighting. That's why two arbs requested that I withdraw and why I complied.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Kww, the fact that you thought desysop was only "reasonable" outcome does not in any way make it necessarily true. INeverCry's resignation spared ArbCom the need to actually engage with the reasonableness of his actions in all the surrounding circumstances. The case being withdrawn spared ArbCom the need to look at Prodego's actions and the way that blocling policy has been distorted into a presumption in favour of keeping editors blocked and ensuring the power of admins and their "mops". I have wondered whether to say anything about this demoralising series of events knowing that as a content editor and non-admin my view is worthless to some in the sysop community, but Kww it was your declaration above (which I consider a distortion of "fact") that has motivated me into posting. Editors like Eric get accused of chasing editors away and this is used a justification for poor treatment from some admins; however, I believe that admin misbehaviour and disdain for editors, coupled with the silence from many other admins in the face of unreasonable treatment, inaction from ArbCom on important issues and the hierarchical attitudes and assumed superiority from some quarters that is far more discouraging. I have taken time away several times in my wiki-career and it has never resulted from actions like Eric using forceful language to call a spade a spade but rather from treatment that is unfair and unreasonable from those holding wiki-power. There are plenty of good people here in the editor, admin, and functionary communities but there are also those whose actions betray a focus on their own agendas and powers and who do a huge amount of damage to this place, and they are unfortunately aided by good people who stand by and say nothing in the face of poor admin behaviour so as to avoid conflict. Unless we address the systemic problems with power structures and mistreatment of editors, Wikipedia will continue down a path to its own destruction, and this episode - losing a sysop over doing what he thought was best for the encyclopedia and having go unchallenged the notion that controversial blocks need admin consensus to overturn but wheel-warring to undo a controversial unblock is fine - illustrated some of those problems once again. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we need to turn the Bureaucrats Noticeboard into yet another forum for agenda-pushing? 'Attack the admins' has become a fun sport for some, but the fact is that areas of Wikipedia are behavioural cesspools because certain editors think they should be above the rules in light of their "valuable contributions". It is refreshing that there are admins willing to stand up to this. INC was the author of his own misfortune. Taroaldo ✉ 02:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered the possibility that the admins are the architects of their own misfortune, and unless checked will be the death of Wikipedia? Eric Corbett 02:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Reports of such death have been wildly exaggerated for quite some time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Certainly there are some problem admins. There are problems everywhere on this project, including at the top. The difference is in my perspective. I have accepted since the beginning that this is a failed project. But there are useful elements. Therefore my main wish for Wikipedia is that it becomes a reasonably decent place for all constructive editors to work. If we can improve the place along the way, then that's a bonus. But, in its present composition, it will never achieve the lofty heights that the wishful thinkers are hoping for. Taroaldo ✉ 02:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
What do you consider "the top", and what problems do you believe there are there? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering that too. In a project like this there is no "top" that I am aware of. WMF certainly does not manage us in any way. Apteva (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
-cough-WP:ACTRIAL for one example of their management. ~Charmlet -talk- 18:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that after our latest episode on How to Behave Bad in Wikipedia, INeverCry won't be back anytime soon. I actually doubt that he will ever request to be sysopped again. Actually, this whole unnecessary series of events made me realize why some good longstanding users like, say, Ian Rose or Sturmvogel 66 have no desire to be sysops, and I share the feeling. — ΛΧΣ21 00:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    A noble bunch of sour grapes? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, could someone who knows please clarify whether INeverCry can ask here for the tools back or needs to go through RfA? My recollection is that requiring an RfA for de-mops exists in certain specific instances, but it is not a discretionary requirement, and in most cases all that is required is a 24 hour waiting period, no? Apteva (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I seldom agree with Apteva, because he's generally, from what I've seen, trying to make a point for the sake of making a point, but here I think such clarification would be helpful. INC was under no cloud I can see, other than a quickly withdrawn, tactical request for arbitration, and if the arb request had run its course there would, I believe, have been all sorts of other questions that need to be answered by other editors/admins. Denying INC the right to return as an admin seems punitive to me, without any conviction. Oh, and INC was a damn good admin too, imo. Begoon talk 17:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Wheel-warring and asking for a desysop in the middle of an ArbCom case that would have otherwise been accepted had he not resigned the tools seems like a cloud to me. People have done less and been denied. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah - fair comment, I suppose - I just tend to see it all as part of the "Malleus malaise" and I hate to see a well meaning editor suffer for that. I see no malice or gameplaying in his actions, but opinions can differ. Begoon talk 18:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The question was answered by 28 Bytes earlier. Was that not clear? Addendum, given that it was predicated on an active arbitration request, which was withdraw, I could see why it wasn't clear from the earlier answer. However, I don't see any way to conclude other than that there was a cloud. (Which is unfortunate.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess not, or it wouldn't have been asked again. Yes, I read that, and (now that you altered your comment) I read your "addendum" too - still feel that this tactical use of an arbcom request is questionable. I won't comment again, but this sits wrong with me. Begoon talk 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The arbitration request was withdrawn only because INC had already given up the mop, not because it was frivolous; had he not done so, the case would quite probably have been accepted. Clearly, we don't know how a case could have ended (admonishment, desysopping, nothing, all is possible), but in my opinion this is the quintessential resignation "under a cloud" (i.e. done to avoid scrutiny). Then again, I'm not a 'crat, so, of course, I'll let them decide. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Salvio, I've always respected your judgement - you tend to see through the crap, and I appreciate you chiming in so properly. I'm possibly wrong, but I hate to see another casualty in a pointless war. Maybe it's just inevitable - I dunno. I'll butt out now, and sorry to bother you all. Begoon talk 18:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
So as I read it, and without checking to see if any crats have answered (Salvio is an Arbitrator, and if the case had been taken it might or might not have resulted in de-sysing), the answer is yes, INC can request the mop back here, the standard 24 hour rule applies, and may or may not be opposed during that time. If it is opposed (by consensus), or no crat after 24 hours wait is willing to give the mop back, an RfA will be needed. Does this sum it up? Apteva (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Clarification, 28 is a crat, but "I think a new RfA would be required" is not very definite, and "I think that one is not explicitly required" is what I would have said. Apteva (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
INC is very much entitled to ask, however given what occurred, it doesn't seem likely that his bit would be returned after twenty-four hours. 28bytes is a bureaucrat and it doesn't seem like he would be willing if INC was asking based on his comment. I don't know of many 'crats who would consider resysopping in this case because it's clear scrutiny was being avoided prior to him requesting desysop. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Salvio, the bigger problem is that ArbCom encouraged that the request be withdrawn without looking at the use of the blocking policy as a weapon to reinforce admin power over the non-admins (the rulers over the ruled) and the arguable wheel-warring by the admin who changed the status of the AN discussion from no consensus = stays unblocked to no consensus = stays blocked. EdChem (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, I didn't get the chance to participate, because by the time I got up, a clerk had already archived the request – and, though the speed of the entire incident surprises me, I understand the desire to close the case after it was withdrawn. The idea, however, is that every case needs to have a filer, meaning that at least one of the parties must think that our intervention is necessary. We shouldn't actively go looking for cases or impose them on parties. Regarding the political purpose you attribute to our actions, well, I disagree of course, but I fear that would not be a productive discussion... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Salvio, I don't understand why the RFAR wasn't accepted to address the conduct of all parties, i. e. Prodego's wheel-warring. It's news to me that you get to go against WP:WHEEL ("Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it"), no questions asked, by calling the repetition "procedural". Was there an emergency, a privacy concern, or anything else mentioned in the "Exceptional circumstances"? No. Bishonen | talk 10:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC).
This is being discussed here as well, so I'll keep it short. The idea is that we try to avoid forcing cases on parties, meaning that when the filer withdraws a RFAR we usually tend to consider the matter close. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Salvio, whatever the motivations of the Arbitrators lobbying for withdrawal were, the appearance was awful (in my opinion) and looked like they wanted to avoid looking into blocking policy or Prodego issues. Yes, a court case needs a filer but a judge doesn't encourage the filer to withdraw and then say "if only we had a filer". I know you never commented, but ArbCom as an institution has made itself look bad (again) and I hope (perhaps overly optimistically) that something might be learned from these events. EdChem (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that unblocking a valuable content editor, Eric Corbett, carries an automatic death sentence. In a Wikipedia where so few admins and Arbs ever feel inclined to honorably fall on their swords - this de-sysop seems particularly worrying; it's as though INeverCry felt intimidated, bullied and panicked into requesting a de-sysop. I wonder if the Arbcom is aware of that.  Giano  09:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Giano, unblocking doesn't carry an automatic death sentence. If INeverCry had not re-unblocked after Eric was reblocked there wouldn't have been anything against INeverCry. The re-blocking admin might have been taken to ARBCOM if they had refused to undo their re-block if asked, but instead of discussing it with them INeverCry unblocked again. That is unacceptable behavior. GB fan 12:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer the questions posed here, the way I see this is that this does count as resigning under a cloud. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, yeah. This is pretty much the definition of the "resigning under a cloud" clause. Andrevan@ 11:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2013#August 2013

The following can be desysopped as inactive as of August 1, 2013:

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

RfA withdrawal

At this point, I am withdrawing my RfA. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Archived and delisted. Sorry it didn't go as expected. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it actually did kinda go as expected. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bit

I'd like to have my bit back please. I'm more useful to the project with it then without it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. After the obligatory 24-hour wait, I'll be happy to flip the bit, assuming another 'crat doesn't beat me to it. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks 28; it'd be an honor to have you restore it. I promise I will be good and friendly the next 24 hours. Can I get anyone a drink? Some chips? Drmies (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • All good from my perspective, nice to recover a helpful editor back into the admin ranks. Welcome back Drmies. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed, its too bad more editors aren't allowed to be Helpful and useful. Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you TRM. Kumioko, you know as well as anybody (and probably better than me) that there's lots of things wrong in our beautiful house. In my opinion, though, past grievances should be allowed to pass, and innuendo is rarely productive. Having said that, though, I appreciate the good work you've done here, and I'll extend a hand of friendship containing also a glass of anijsmelk, for you and for tee-totallers and sleepy heads everywhere. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks, never had that particular drink. Don't mind me just disenfranchised with the project lately with the generally negative environment and VisualEditorGate. Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No cause for concern here. Welcome back, in about an hour. Pakaran 20:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. bibliomaniac15 22:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or planned?) that means it will probably go to a spam folder.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up: Security concerns with an admin account

Resolved
 – Seems sorted [2]. Thanks for the concern. –xenotalk 02:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Anthony Bradbury#Odd email from you. I'm not really sure how these things are handled, so I'll leave it in more capable hands. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 16:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Need some solution

I have posted on User talk:Viran and User talk:Abhishka after loggin into those accounts. My identity should not be a issue. If password reset is not possible, pls rename this account to User:Neo.. If that's also not possible, pls block account User:Neo. and rename this account to new username User:NEO.. Thanks. 223.183.218.81 (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. Temporary name for account "Neo." (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am desisting to edit any article because my contribs will go to this username. Although I have been banned from Gujarat topic, it was never my interest topic. I do edit any article. Pls help me to reset password or change username. One day I will be Bureaucrat and I may help you out. God bless you all Crats. Temporary name for account "Neo." (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrats cannot rest passwords. You will need to contact a developper if you want to explore that possibility. WJBscribe (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SNOW vs WP:NOTNOW

I was quite surprised to see Newyorkbrad call for an RfA to be closed early against the wishes of the candidate, though I don't doubt his intentions were good. Can we have clarification here, for future reference, what policy is regarding this? WP:NOTNOW says: "if the candidate wishes the RfA to run for the full time, then this is acceptable". I'm not saying this is how it should be; I have no strong opinion on this. But as 'crats are the ones who close RfA's, I'd like it made clear if the wording at WP:NOTNOW is correct, or if it needs to be changed. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the key phrase is actually the bit that preceeds the part you quote. In general if the candidate wishes the RfA to run for the full time, then this is acceptable (bolding mine). That deliberately leaves wiggle room, and indeed I made sure it was from the very first draft when I wrote the page in 2008. Note also that neither SNOW nor NOTNOW are policies. Pedro :  Chat  07:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I once again fail to see the point of WP:SNOW closures. I particularly object to non-crats doing that and doing it early in the process. A candidate ought to be entitled to run his/her own RfA to conclusion if (s)he so wishes. If there are such compelling reasons to close it, then the 'crats can do it on their own, without having the need for community members to open threads asking them to do so. Snowolf How can I help? 07:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree - it should be crats closing RFAs as SNOW, for all but the most obvious trolling "I should be an admin because cocks dicks lol" requests. But turn it around, what purpose would have been served by allowing this particular RFA to continue for another six days or so? In what way would that be a benefit to the project? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I disgaree that only 'crats should close obvious SNOW/NOTNOW requests, largely along the same line of WP:NAC at XFD's. There *may* be an argument that if an RFA has been closed and then reopened it should be left to the 'crats subsequently. I can't see what benefit will come from restricting failing RFA closures to the small group of 'crats however. I agree with Snowolf that candidates should be entitled to run the RFA to conclusion (generally - obviously POINTy re-opening aside). The ideal, of course, is that an obvious SNOW RFA should be discussed with the candidate on their talk page with an offer to close it for them. Pedro :  Chat  13:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of related questions involved here, but the point I was making is that in a "snow" situation, there comes a point where the RfA ought to be closed even without the candidate's agreement. I can agree that in many cases, if a candidate says "I realize I am not doing well, but perhaps things will change (and/or) I am getting valuable input, so let's not close it at this time," there will be good reason to consider such a request. What I don't agree with is that a good-faith RfA could never be closed early without the candidate's agreement. If the RfA is at 3/10/5 and the candidate says "please don't close it yet," that is one thing. But suppose it moves from 3/10/5 to 5/20/5 to 7/30/5 to 8/50/7 ... at some point enough is enough and the bureaucrats should be able to intervene. The policy, or guideline, or practice should be flexible enough to allow them to do so. And in my opinion, this had should become such a case, although I appreciate the candidate's acknowledging that the time had come to withdraw the RfA and thus eliminating the disagreement in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW are policies designed to govern when non bureaucrats may closes RfAs. In that context, it may be sensible that such closes are reversed if the candidate so requests. However, as recorded at WP:RFA itself: "A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. They may also close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable." If a bureaucrat determines that "a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit", then the close would not usually be reversed, even if the candidate disagreed with the early closure. WJBscribe (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea: Admins should be able to close as SNOW/NOTNOW (unless you want a admins to be able to put it on "on-hold, pending close" ... then make a Bureaucrat formally do the steps below), but only a Bureaucrat can re-open them when the editor themself requests it. However, too often editors usurp the RFA process as an editor review. The Bureaucrat should only re-open after the following:
  1. They have verified with the editor AND their nominator(s) that they wish it to proceed (yes, failed RFA's are embarrassing to the nom as well) - this would give a nom a chance to strike their nomination and back away slowly
  2. They have verified that the editor-in-question has recently availed themself of editor review - if not, no reopening
ES&L 10:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

RfA/Incris Mrsi

This RfA, which was reopened earlier today after a SNOW close following discussion on WT:RFA, is currently at 4/32/6 and deteriorating rapidly. All input that the candidate could reasonably expect to receive has been provided. Continuation is not a good use of the community's time and I strongly recommend that the bureaucrats re-close the RfA and keep it closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It should never have been re-opened, but that's a moot point now. GiantSnowman 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Brad, the user themselves has indicated a desire to allow this to continue regardless. We should respect that, having given the nominee plenty of chances to withdraw (or have the nomination withdrawn). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree. At some point keeping an RfA, not merely beyond the point where it's clear it won't pass, but beyond the point where it's become a massive pile-on, is a disservice not only to the candidate but to the community as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well then we'll need to agree to disagree. This has been closed once, and the candidate expressed a desire to see it through, despite the warnings. There's no drain on resources, and the candidate is aware of what's happening. What more is there to discuss? (For what it's worth, the determination of the candidate to see it through has stood them in good stead, and has resulted in more supports than the original nomination. Perhaps this is significant.) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Now a moot point, the RFA has been withdrawn by the nominator. Having said that, if an editor continually insists that the RFA go ahead, then it should be acceptable to allow it. 'Crats and other editors can provide the nominator with support and advice, but if someone's determined to see it through, especially an editor with a clue, we should respect their opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

TRM, as I point out in the thread below, bureaucrats can close RfAs early against the candidates wishes and we have done that from time to time. I have in mind scenarios where the discussion is generating "more heat than light" and it has passed the point where the candidate is getting useful feedback. That said, NYB asked that this RfA (which I have not looked at in any detail) be closed early. You responded to the request and decided not to exercise your discretion to do so. Fair enough. But I think we need to make it clear that in some circumstances, RfAs will be closed early even if that is not what the candidate wants. WJBscribe (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree, generally - but why was there a 6 day wait before reopening? It's almost too late. But there's another issue as well. A lot of the time, when we get RFAs for inexperienced editors (SNOW and NOTNOW candidates alike), part of the rationale for closing early is to avoid creating a massively negative first RFA. There is always the chance that these editors will gain experience and clue over time, eventually putting up a plausible RFA 2 - and then that first aborted RFA becomes part of the candidate's record, for editors to use as evidence in evaluating the candidate. When that happens with this editor, this first RFA will be damaging to them, likely moreso than it would have been had it remained closed. Their edits factor into that, but it's a judgement thing as well. They questioned the close and were adamant that they wanted the full 7 days - but withdrew only hours later. I guarantee you that some editors, for good or ill, will oppose at RFA 2 on that basis along - and they might not be wrong. It's precisely this sort of problem that SNOW closes are intended to avoid. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that is a valid argument but then again, if so, we need to address that as a separate problem with the RFA process, not the candidate. Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You're not wrong. But no one can doubt that a candidate's reaction to a stressful situation - like having a self-nominated RFA closed early as per SNOW - is useful data in evaluating that candidate. As this incident, and this discussion, will show - it's complicated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it is a little complicated but in fairness to the user that situation was blown way out of proportion. The RFA was only initially open, as I recall, for about 20 minutes before it was Snow closed. The candidate requested it be reopened and a long debate ensued. Then when it was reopened a bunch of folks opposed because the candidate requested it be reopened. Which is, IMO, an extremely poor and childish oppose. If that is the only reason to oppose, then IMO the candidate must be doing ok if that's all they have to complain about. Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Just some notes for clarity: i) The request was opened for two hours, not twenty minutes; ii) Mrsi reverted my close ten minutes after it was done, and stated on his talk page that he would only accept a close from a bureaucrat. He never requested it to stay opened, he just challenged my close and screamed for a bureaucrat to close it. And Wizardman came and satisfied his desire by closing it. After that, Mrsi contacted me five days later, asking me why I performed the close and I explained my actions to him as much as I could.
Then, I told him to post at WT:RFA about it if he wanted, and offered my apologies to him. And, after he let everyone know he was disgusted by the close, he got his RfA reopened at his will, and all the drama took place. Therefore, there were several things that Mrsi should have done and didn't, and several that did and shouldn't. He should have told after he reverted me that he wanted it to stay open; he should have not asked for a buraucrat to close it; and he should have not raged to "the community" for that purpose. — ΛΧΣ21 05:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My RfA

I have decided to withdraw my Request for Administrator. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please advise. I would like to make a statement of thanks. Do I do that before or after you post a notification of my withdrawal? ```Buster Seven Talk 04:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You must state below your acceptance comment that you withdraw the nomination. Striking the acceptance comment is also useful. After that, any crat can close the request. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 05:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to do anything beyond your post here. I have closed the RfA. Please note that anyone can close a withdrawn request; a bureaucrat is not needed. WJBscribe (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds - desysop per ArbCom

Would a bureaucrat please remove Ironholds (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) sysop right per this Arbitration decision. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grandiose

I eliminated an oppose vote from this RfA. If I overstepped, please revert my action. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw the oppose and was outraged by it, but upon thinking about it, I didn't do anything about it. In these circumstances, the best way is just to remember "don't feed the trolls" and just leave it completely alone. Say nothing and let them suffocate. That was the lesson I learned from the Peter Damian incident some four years ago; by eliminating the oppose, you give them some wiggle room or some hope that they can justify their action by setting up a straw man, and then things go downhill from there. But I do agree that the oppose was a pretty bad apple. bibliomaniac15 01:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand the "don't feed the troll" argument, but I'm having trouble following the last part about "wiggle room" and "downhill". Out of curiosity, assuming my action was warranted, was it better to eliminate it from the score but leave the text in, or should I have removed it entirely? The user had made three trolling edits in a row (one was blanking their talk page but the edit summary was telling). The one posted at ANI (or AN, I forget), I removed entirely as I'm more sure of my ground on an administrator noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would have no objection to your completely removing the !vote (and, of course, the ensuing discussion as it would no longer be necessary). AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Request Bot flag for User:HasteurBot

Per BRFA's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 I would like to petition for the bot flag for HasteurBot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

An ANI thread could use some 'crat input

Has to do with the use of a name like "Vanished user nnnn" ANI thread--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHU backlog

The counter on the right about the number of WP:CHU/S pending requests appears to be inaccurate. For me, the counter reads "6". At the time of this message, there are 64 total requests, and only about 10-12 of them have responses from a bureaucrat. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I only noticed because I have a pending request there. Because it was recommended that I stay globally signed out, if a 'crat could take care of mine when they've got a moment, yeah, that'd be great... I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grandiose

Is now almost 15 hours (by my time zonz) overdue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The one time I actually vote on an RfA... I would gladly close it but since I did vote that'd be an issue. Wizardman 16:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt. I've closed it as successful. Warofdreams talk 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Shortish break

I will be mostly unavailable over the next 2-3 months, so if someone can handle the email requests to the 'crat list, that would be great. See you on the flipside. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Former interwiki bot retires

Hello! Sorry if I put this request in wrong place but I could not find the procedure for removal of bot flags. Please remove the bot flag of my bot MagnusA.Bot (contribs). The interwiki linking is now done through Wikidata. Best regards --MagnusA (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djd (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2013#September 2013

The following can be desysopped as inactive as of September 1, 2013:

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WilliamH

WilliamH I don't know the backstory here. Can someone fill me in (and point me elsewhere if this is not an appropriate place to ask).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

[3], don't know what motivated the request. Monty845 13:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Resysop eligibility

Can some bureaucrat check if I am eligible for resysoping or not? The facts:

  • I was inactive between Aug 21, 2010 and Aug 31, 2013, ie >3 years
  • My admin bit was removed (due to inactivity) on Sep 8 2011 < 2 years ago.

I don't know which of the above two points is determinative. Although you would surely want to check, I can affirm that I was not "under a cloud" before/during my period of inactivity. I'd be glad to answer any q's you may have either here, or by email. Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrat, but you indeed were inactive for a three year period, and I had you listed as such at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/inactive as long-term inactive. Under our policy of long-term inactivity that was adopted while you were away, you would be required a new RFA (regardless of reason behind the desysopping). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a crat either, but I'm not so sure about that. The way I'm reading that section, the timer only starts when the desysop is carried out, which in this case was just under two years ago. Abecedare resumed editing just before the 24 months were up, so I don't think a new RFA would be required here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Bongwarrior on the interpretation of that. However, and with no malice towards Abecedare, three years is a long time not to edit. A lot of things have changed in that time. I would suggest the editor edit for a couple months to get back in the swing of things before the tools are returned. Not that I think they would do anything intentional, but they could do something not realizing the rules changed. Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
In other resysop requests, and in the notice that was sent out to former administrators including Abecedare, it was stated that it was retroactive in regards to prior inactivity: "This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy." Remember this policy was created in response to a former administrator returning after four years, getting the tools and misusing them. If Bongwarrior's interpretation was correct, someone from 2004 could request resysop today in 2013. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No not really, all we are saying is that we think the clock starts when the desysop is reported, not including the period of inactivity prior to the desysop. With that said, all this is merely academic because its the crats' who have to make the call, not us. So in the end it doesn't really matter what we think. Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, actually. The inactivity policy was enacted in July 2011, and everyone inactive from July 2010 and back were desysopped. So with that interpretation, literally everyone who was desysopped could request it back until 3 years passed (July 2014), which is why I think they stated it was retroactive. The notice sent to Abecedare and other former administrators was sent from MBisanz, who is a bureaucrat. With that being said, yes, it is through the discretion of the bureaucrats whether to or not. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The fundamental problem is that the wording at WP:ADMIN#Lengthy inactivity does not match current practice, nor the note the crats leave inactive admins on their talk pages, nor other pragraphs on that page, nor does not match the results of the RFC. It's unfortunate this wasn't noticed at the time. As an experiment, I plan to make this completely reasonable change to the WP:ADMIN page to correct this, and make sure it matches all of the above, but I predict it will be reverted with an edit summary of "discuss changes first!!", at which time I plan to pledge to never ever ever try to edit a policy page again. -Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a change be made to the policy page to reflect that, but I decided it wasn't worth the headache since it being retroactive would only matter until July 2014, three years after the policy. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on review, the other part of the problem is that the RFC was closed unclearly. I'm reverting myself at WP:ADMIN, and will let someone with a head for these things deal with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Really I think this is just a storm in a teacup anyway. In all the admins we desysop how many have come and ask for them back? 4 or 5 maybe. Its really not worth the hassle of arguing with those small numbers IMO. If they really want them back and the crats are ok I would say let them have it but at the same time I also think there is some value in letting the editor edit for a few months before just giving them the keys to the kingdom again. Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
In all honestly, I think if a former administrator falls under long-term inactivity and are unable to re-request it here, then started an RFA after maybe a month of positive editing, I would support them. The only problem I have with re-requests from inactive administrators is them immediately leaving for another year after requesting it back. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, I guess the only reason to worry about it is the bad feelings that might results when we tell someone one thing in one place, and another thing in another place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That's true and that precedent has already been set too; many times, in many venues. We aren't really very good in this community of equal treatment or consistency when it comes to policy. As you know I've harped about that many times. AS I mentioned above though I am a proponent of letting the edit for a little while with that long of a break but I would hate to see the editor just say hell with it and leave again in disgust. Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe someone was already declined who was in the same boat, but it's probably somewhere in the archives. --Rschen7754 07:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You are correct, I remember it, it's located here. Galwhaa requested resysop after inactivity from between 2009 to 2013, two years after desysop (which is the same thing situation here). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Fully inclined to agree with Moe Epsilon.The Period of long-term inactivity is clearly 3 years of no editing and not 4 years if one is calculating from the day the tools were taken off (an admin is desyopped for inactivity only after 1 year of no editing) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: Abecedare, it does appear we are bound by consensus so I apologize for not being able to grant a simple resysop request - you may , of course, file at WP:RFA. Thanks for your service and also thanks to those offering input above. –xenotalk 21:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno and others for your responses. I asked the question because, after reading WP:Admin, I was not clear if the relevant period was three years of inactivity or 24 months after the date of desysoping. But after reading the discussion above (and re-reading the Admin page and also the RFC), I am certain that the consensus here is indeed the correct interpretation.
I don't plan on an RFA anytime soon but am happy to contribute as a regular editor. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Resignation

Hello all. While I'm sure this comes as no surprise to some, I'm just popping by to say that giving User:Singularity42 the bit will be my last action as a 'crat. To make it plain, I am resigning my position as a bureaucrat. I have serious off-wiki commitments coming up and although the position of 'crat has been somewhat diminished lately with SUL changes, I've become aware of the fact that I can give neither adequate time nor suitable temperament to the role. It will be somewhat refreshing to be able to express my actual opinion in due course, but for now, thanks to those of you who supported me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've often wondered how it is that bureaucrats manage to bite their tongues long enough to be elected to the role, so I'll be interested to see what you really think. Eric Corbett 19:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I first edited in May 2005 and was elected as a 'crat in March 2008, I don't remember biting my tongue "long enough to be elected to the role". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As you get older you lose three things: your hair, your teeth ... and I can't remember what the third thing is. Eric Corbett 20:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Sex drive. ES&L 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Thank you very much of all your work WJBscribe (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My account

Hi, User:The Whispering Wind here. My system has forgotten my password which I also can't remember. It seems that since I didn't register an email address I'm done for. Anyway I can regain access to my account please? 87.113.224.154 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you using Firefox, or a different browser? If Firefox, you can find your passwords in "Edit->Preferences->Security->Saved Passwords". If a different browser, someone else may be able to help direct you to the place it is saved. –Quiddity (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Got it thanks; now Tools>Options on my version but you put me on the right lines. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Resysop request for Nakon

Bureaucrat Team, I would like to request resysopping for my account, Nakon (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). I took an extended break once I found new employment after completing my College studies, and I am now at the point where I feel comfortable returning to assist the project. As provided on my talk page, I have been directed to this noticeboard to request the restoration of my admin bit. My last administrative action was on 2011-03-07T06:33:43, which is within the 3 year window regarding inactivity. Unfortunately, as the sha-1 identity confirmation on my userpage was created in 2008, I am unable to recall the string I used to verify it. However, as my email address was authenticated on 2006-05-12, a reply to an email sent to my confirmed address should be sufficient to verify original ownership my account. If there are any questions regarding this request, please let me know. Nakon 05:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For 'crats: Nakon does indeed fall within the window of resysop for inactivity; he was desysopped in the April 2012 batch of inactive administrators. Nakon, since you've been gone we enacted a policy of waiting 24 hours beforing adminship to an account. Your tools should be restored at or around 5:00, 12 September 2013. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information regarding the updated 24-hr timeframe for restoration of bits. I appreciate the time you've spent reviewing this request. Nakon 05:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, this looks fine and should be able to be processed after 24 hours have elapsed. Welcome back, WJBscribe (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk/Bureaucrat discussion

I have opened a bureaucrat discussion regarding the outcome of this RfA. Comments much appreciated. I am also sending an email to the bureaucrat mailing list to invite comment in that discussion (all discussion will however take place on-wiki). WJBscribe (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of my new account

I had forgotten password of my account User:Neo.. So I had created new account User:Temporary name for account "Neo." and I had requested here to swap usernames. But due to some reasons, my request was not fulfilled.

I have got this new username User:Abhi. I had decided to stay away from wiki for a while then edit as per WP:CLEANSTART but I did one mistake and some wikihounder detected my past. I request you to block my prev accounts User:Neo. and User:Temporary name for account "Neo." as I am going to use this account. Thanks. Abhi (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:WikifixR, User:Etianbun, and User:Wikipitidy

Can a 'crat take a look at these three accounts? Something awfully strange is going on with the renaming here, and I think it is making it difficult to follow what is happening regarding contribution and talk page histories.

I came across these accounts because Etianbun tagged their own talk page for deletion with the rationale that this was the talk page of the a renamed account. I restored the orginal redirect as is normal practice for a renamed account. I quickly realized that the editor appears to have accidentially recreated their old account. so I soft-blocked it, with an explanation why.

However, as I looked into this in more detail, there was something confusing that I can't figure out. From the revision history of the user talk page, it appears the account was renamed Etianbun --> Wikipitidy in August 2012, and then Etianbun --> WikifixR in June 2013. Not sure how that works, but as a result, it appears that contributions and talk page history for WikifixR (formerly Etianbun) can only be accessed by looking at the revision history of Wikipitidy (also formerly Etianbun).

Anyway of resolving this? Singularity42 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The first Etianbun account was renamed to Wikipitidy in 2012. An account was recreated automatically with the old username, then renamed to WikifixR, and the old name was recreated again. The user talk is split but this appears correct as it is for different accounts. Maybe the redirects left by renaming are unnecessary and misleading. It looks like the user has been logging in on other Wikimedia sites (would that trigger recreation of the account here?) or has selected an option somewhere to automatically login with the old username. Peter James (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Backlog

The bot that clerks WP:CHUS has been shut off permanently and there is a huge backlog. A new botop or some other help would be appreciated. MBisanz talk 17:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So I managed to hack up Chris G's code a bit and got it running, but the bot is complaining that its getting timeout errors since the page is pretty large...some edits managed to go through though. Legoktm (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
After a little more testing, I've set up the script to run every hour, if you need it to be more frequent let me know. Legoktm (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The backlog is still pretty big. Are any crats free to help out? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to do what I can in terms of sifting through some of these requests, but my shoddy internet connection can barely handle processing an edit to the WP:CHU/S page at this point. In the meantime, some bureaucrat attention would be much appreciated. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been crazy busy with work over the past few days but things will settle down a bit for me within the next few days. If the backlog is still there in a few days then I should be able to help clear it. Anyone should feel free to ping me about it then. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AstRoBot

AstRoBot needs to be flagged per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AstRoBot. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

CHUU

I got the CHUS backlog down to a manageable number (the page will at least load now.) But I don't have time to tackle CHUU. It's nearly a month blacklogged, so could someone else look at it? Thanks. MBisanz talk 22:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done a handful. Will try to find time to take another look over the weekend. WJBscribe (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Just pinging for myself at WP:USURP. Also, I'd be willing to go through a number of the CHUS. – AJLtalk 06:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2013#October 2013

The following can be desysopped as inactive as of October 1, 2013:

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I would be grateful if you could please update the relevant lists. WJBscribe (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cratstats

It doesn't look to me that cratstats is really used much. Am I correct in my assumptions?—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's currently transcluded a bit.
I'm not sure how we'd measure attention to it (i.e., eyeballs on it). Perhaps by modifying the links on it to be trackable during click-throughs? Dunno. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking because it was out of commission since August and nobody bothered notifying me about it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I use it mainly for the "overdue RFXs" and "approved BRFAs" indicators. If those said zero, I wouldn't have double checked that the counter was correct, just assumed there weren't any RfXs or bots that needed attention. We'd be more likely to notice if it stopped working whilst displaying a number in one of those categories... WJBscribe (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Same here; when I visit this page, I glance at the box to see if there are any overdue RfAs or BRfAs, but if it's out of date because the bot is down, that's not something that would be immediately obvious to me. So yes, please keep maintaining it! 28bytes (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it should have a timestamp, something similar like on User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Vacation

Guerillero (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Since the Manning move discussion has been closed, I do not need my sysop package for any outstanding reason. So, would one of the crats please pull my sysop bit while I take a vacation from the meta areas of wikipedia? (Note: I DO NOT want my CU and OS flags to be removed from my account.) Can you also, please, leave just my OS and CU flags behind and not grant me any of the non-admin flags? I currently have a very limited amount of time that I can give to Wikipedia and I would like to give it in a way that does not require the mop. (My mainspace part of the pie is painful to look at. I want to remedy this.) Thanks. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Done as requested:
08:13, 9 October 2013 WJBscribe changed group membership for User:Guerillero from checkuser, oversight and administrator to checkuser and oversight (requested by Guerillero)
WJBscribe (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Desysopping

I hardly have time anymore to edit the project anymore considering that I might be finally graduating from college graduation next summer, working extensive hours at my job each week and dealing with health issues as a result real life stress of both tasks. I'm also extremely disillusioned with the direction the project and the Foundation is taking lately with contributors and certain areas like deletion while satisfied in a way with the improving quality of our articles. As I am a major supporter of removal of rights due to inactivity policy and it seems like I'm heading that way, I request desysopping of my account for the reasons given. I also don't need any headaches given the "importance" of the tools, even if its dealing with a minor CSD deletion. I might request it back depending on how things go next year, but not anytime soon. Thanks Secret account 01:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel the same way. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your service. Andrevan@ 04:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding closing remarks

I have always believed the closing bureaucrat for an RfA should go beyond the mere determination of a pass/fail consensus and actually include prose to highlight the important elements that emerged in the discussion. I have almost always been wrong in my beliefs. Nevertheless, here, I proffer another. Thoughts?—John Cline (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Name change query

OTRS received a query about a name change.

The original user name was Ajshaw77.

I see on 18 August, a request to change Ajshaw77 to Mrdressup which was completed on 19 August.

However, I also see, on 6 October, a request to change Ajshaw77 to Mrdressup77. That was marked as completed.

User claims to be able to log in as both Ajshaw77 and Mrdressup77, but not the desired Mrdressup. My guess is the second request caused some problems. Can someone verify?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • If the user can no longer log in to "Mrdressup" account because they have forgotten their password, the only thing we could offer is to move aside the Mrdressup account and rename one of the owned accounts to 'Mrdressup'. Once the rename is completed they need to be sure to special:logout and log into the new account name otherwise it will just be recreated again [4]. –xenotalk 21:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please rescind my administratorship (KieferSkunk)

KieferSkunk (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hi there. I have been an administrator since October 28, 2007. Due to some personal issues as well as what I would consider a high-stress environment here on Wikipedia, I have decided I no longer wish to have access to the admin tools - I feel I'm at greater risk of abusing them than I should be, and the vast majority of the work I do here on WP does not require them. Rather than risk doing something I would regret, I would rather just be an ordinary user. Please rescind my adminship effective ASAP. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service; enjoy your break from the tools. 28bytes (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate the quick response. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Desysop request

Hey, all! Could y'all pull my admin bit, please? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy your break. 28bytes (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, 28b, I think I will. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Resysop request: El_C

Apologies, I seem to have missed the notice this year. Please do restore my sysop flag; despite my inactivity, having the ability to read deleted entries continues to be helpful to my research — which is going... not as well as the actual writing, but high-on-optimism I persevere, probably! But, of course, so sorry for remaining so otherwise busy elsewhere. I do still hope to return one of these days in-force (but I appear to have been saying that a lot lately!). Much love, Misses-and-Kisses, to all my friends and colleagues here, El_C 22:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It's usual to wait 24 hours before actioning these sorts of requests, but as I removed the rights myself for purely procedural reasons less than a month ago, that seems like process for the sake of process. Welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Account rename request (for someone else's account)

Hi Bureaucrats. I would like to request that (indef blocked) <redacted> be renamed to <something else>, per WP:BLPABUSE, as the current username is a racial attack against (black) Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton. Apologies in advance if this request should have been listed at WP:CHU, but that seemed to be for requests to rename one's own account, which this is not. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that requests for removing attack usernames from logs, etc, should be reported to the Oversight team for evaluation and private removal. This specific username has since been removed from logs. LFaraone 03:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No rename needed as name has been removed from the log. WJBscribe (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing usernames is slightly backlogged

Changing usernames is slightly backlogged. Might see if a bureaucrat can check this out. Dreth(talk) 10:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot11

HBC AIV helperbot11 (talk · contribs) needs a bot flag per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot11. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 14:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2013#November 2013

The following can be desysopped as of November 1, 2013:

Thanks. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. As on previous occasions, I would be grateful if you could please update the relevant lists. WJBscribe (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Request removal of admin privileges (John Carter)

There have been admins who indicated I should lose admin privileges at ArbCom. I said from the beginning I would request that I no longer have the tools if any admin indicated I should lose them, and those arbs are admins. Therefore, I request of one of you here that you remove admin rights from me. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 is the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
John, I will remove the flag if you wish, but are you sure you don't want to give it some more thought first? Considering the comments in the active case, I don't think we'd be able to grant you a resysop without an RfA should you change your mind in the future. 28bytes (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I would have no intentions of requesting the status being restored in any event, and I do stand by my words, as per my talk page, about removing the bit if anyone requested it. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Good luck John, sad loss. Keep editing.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453

Hi bureaucrats, there is and RfA pending closure at the page I said in my title. Thanks. JianhuiMobile talk 02:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

...and they go for at least 7 days. No need to close exactly at 7 days. ES&L 09:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll review it tonight (which for me is roughly another six hours) if another crat doesn't beat me to it. Wizardman 21:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a poke

WP:CHU/S is backlogged. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, a special thanx to Andrevan for jumping a helping. Cheers, Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a request, but I don't know what it is...

I noticed by accident (by opening a page in a different browser) that in addition to Sphilbrick, there is a user:SPhilbrick. No big deal, except I just noticed that the second name has a number of notifications, including one from an ArbCom member, AGK who might think I ignored the notification. I understand we do not delete accounts, so what is the best next step? It seems highly likely that someone else will make the same mistake, especially as I just changed my sig—it used to display SPhilbrick, which would itself lead someone to send a notice to the wrong user, but I just changed it to display S Philbrick, making it even more likely. I'm posting this here, rather than at the user name request board, but it isn't clear to me what I should be requesting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The other user created their account in 2009 (only edit interestingly was in 2011). You created your account in 2007. Shouldn't the software have detected the similarity in user names when the other user tried to register that account name?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm 99.99% certain the other user is me. I don't remember creating it. But as I know the passwrd to it (and the password isn't "password") I conclude that I must have created it by accident. And the edit, even down to my typcial typing errors, is mine). Actually, having looked at the creation log, the light is starting to go on. That was around the time I was expanding beyond en.wiki, and creating accounts in other projects. My guess is that I created an SPhilbrick account somewhere, and I think that the system autpmatically generated the en,wiki account. That would be consistent with the log entry:
22:13, 15 May 2009 User account SPhilbrick (talk | contribs | block) was created automatically
and would explain why I don't recall creating this account in en.wiki. Like you, I am surprised this was allowed, and my only guess is that the auto creation allowed it; if I had tried to tcreate it myself, it would have been rejected.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
SPhilbrick was created on Meta (manually) (22:05, 15 May 2009 User account SPhilbrick (Talk | contribs) was created) before Sphilbrick was unified on 20 May 2009 and an account automatically created on Meta on 22:43, 28 May 2009. -- KTC (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything for bureaucrats to do here. Just put a doppelganger account tag on this other account or redirect the pages. Andrevan@ 00:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah if you redirect the talk page it will make anyone posting a notice there post the notice on your page instead, except for a few bots that ignore redirects. But I dont know if those bots ever post on talk pages or if it's just for articles. —Soap— 00:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose if you're concerned about notifications going to the wrong account, you could log into the SPhilbrick account and request it be renamed to something like "Account formerly named SPhilbrick". That'd eliminate any confusion, and keep the connection to your real account. EVula // talk // ☯ // —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Some highly visible users (Checkusers, Oversighters) have added a form of their username to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as an <newaccountonly> entry, example. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
To address the only concern that doesn't seem to have been answered here yet: There is an open bug to allow the "forwarding" of notifications from one user to another. Currently set as low-priority, unfortunately. I, too, would welcome this feature. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Crat chat

Resolved

There's a bureaucrat discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453/Bureaucrat discussion, since after reading through it I was unable to come to a decision on my own that I felt was fair to make unilaterally. Wizardman 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Desysop (Phil Sandifer)

Please desysop Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), per WP:AC/N#Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned. For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Resysop (Secret)

My watchlist is a mess, I'm currently running for ArbCom (something which requires the tools), and CSD has backlogs in the hundreds since I been gone. I'm been in bedrest since thyroid surgery. While I still going to avoid some areas that got me frustrated in the first place, I think I'm able to do cleanup work in the meanwhile. Thus request for the tools back, more premature than I thought but the project needs help. Thanks Secret account 02:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is customary for bureaucrats to wait 24 hours before actioning resysop requests in case any member of the community would like to raise an issue we may have overlooked. But this requests looks fine to me and should be actioned in due course. WJBscribe (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Wizardman 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Resysop (JodyB)

Please restore my permissions as an administrator at the English Wikipedia. I was desysopped due to inactivity but I am now back and wish to resume my work. I think you will find that I was not under any cloud at the time. JodyB (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Thank you! JodyB talk 15:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is customary for bureaucrats to wait 24 hours before actioning resysop requests in case any member of the community would like to raise an issue we may have overlooked. But this requests looks fine to me and should be actioned in due course. WJBscribe (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. JodyB talk 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adminbot

Hello, just a heads up that this bot will need both bot and sysop flags. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved here from WT:BN. As the lazy person who will be the main beneficiary of this adminbot's existence, I second the request! BencherliteTalk 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done I, for one, welcome our new adminbot overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted enwiki bureaucrat, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground... wait, why would adminbots have sugar caves? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to know? --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
...point taken. Ignorance is bliss. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

RfA to be closed

Would someone please close RfA/TheAustinMan 2, as the candidate has withdrawn the RfA? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done and I hope the bureaucrats don't mind an uncontroversial non-bureaucrat closure. Thank you for going out for adminship TheAustinMan and I wish you the best of luck. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Resysop request

Hey, crats! I've had a nice break (failed in my self-assigned goal to write an article before Thanksgiving, but I'll do better I swear), and I'd like m bit back, after the 24 hour waiting period or whatever of course. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:D Secret account 22:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Wizardman 23:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2013#December 2013

The following can be desysopped as of December 1, 2013 as inactive:

Note that Rdsmith4 is also a bureaucrat, so a steward will need to remove that permission as well for inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, with the obvious exception of Rdsmith4's bureaucrat bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I requested Rdsmith4's 'crat bit be removed at meta and that has been completed as well. [5] Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And should anybody be curious, I just unsubscribed Rdsmith4 from the bureaucrat mailing list. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest also User:Useight as well? Although I beleive they might be a WMF employee/developer so they might need to stay. They haven't edited since about August 0f 2012 though. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
They have been editing as User:Useight's Public Sock. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok good to know. Thanks for looking. I thought there was probably some exception but wasn't sure. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Reading through Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies and WP:CRAT#Former bureaucrats, it appears that this is only the second year in Wikipedia history in which the number of bureaucrats has decreased. The other year was 2011, in which two 'crats were promoted and three had their rights removed, and the net-negative that year was only because that's when the inactivity de-'cratting policy went into effect. This year, by contrast, has seen two promotions and five removals; three of those removals were resignations, also an all-time record in a given year. Interestingly, prior to Hersfold's resignation in March, we were in the second-longest period without any de-'crattings. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Approved bot doesn't have a bot flag

Resolved
 – No bureaucrat intervention required. Further discussion probably belongs at WP:BON. –xenotalk 14:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite having been approved, AAlertBot doesn't have a bot flag. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 13:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Their rights log says they got it in 2010 and their current rights show it is still flagged. Rgrds. --64.85.215.45 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Its edits show it without a bot flag. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It does have a bot flag [6]. -- KTC (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Not in its edits, it was clogging up Special:RecentChanges earlier when it was set to hide bots. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 16:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
When you were on the recent changes special page, on the line where you can chose to hide/show various edits, did it say "Show bots" or "Hide bots"? If it said "Hide bots", then you actually had it set to show bots (because "Hide bots" actually means "click here to hide bots"). Is this the case? Rgrds. --64.85.215.45 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It said "Show bots" and still does. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Approved bots are allowed to use the bot flag in their edits – and they generally should – but the bot programmer has to specifically code them to do so, and in this case it appears the programmer did not. You may want to follow up with them directly about that. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Could be intentional, actually, because I imagine you might want to watchlist a specific /Article alerts page and then receive updates -- through your watchlist -- when it is modified (which of course wouldn't work if the edits were marked as a bot). Of course, that might be a bit of a pain for recent changes patrollers... Just hypothesizing. Theopolisme (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#Some edits from this bot are not flaged as BOT edits., this is indeed the intent of the bot operator. isaacl (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If you ask me, bots are to always use bot=true, especially high-edit rates one. There is nothing more annoying than seeing them blow up your watch list.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 12:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Opining It seems to me that it does make sense for this bot to not be forcing the bot flag. If the bot drops an alert, you want to see it in your watchlist. Has this been brought up with the bot developer/operators to see if there has been a discussion before? Tempest in a teapot much? Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This has been brought up a few times before and has been by design for years now. The bot has a flag, and all the facilities to use it are indeed implemented, in fact it uses the flag for archive pages or status pages. AAlertBot doesn't use the bot flag for human-watched report pages, because that way people can watchlist them (which is the whole purpose of the bot) while hiding minor bot edits, and it doesn't edit any other pages without flag. It would only show up on watchlists if the user has on purpose watchlisted those specific pages. The downside is, of course, the recent changes feed (which is a bit misleading with its "hide/show bots" link, which really means "hide/show edits with bot tag"). Unfortunately, there is no way to specify that edits should show up in recent changes, but not watchlists, as there are only "minor" and "bot" flags for individual edits. The software would need to differentiate between "minor bot" and "major bot" for that to work, which there hadn't been enough interest in to request yet. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tally-ho?

Caution: Low-importance thread ahead.

The S/O/N running tally on RfB/Writ Keeper isn't working (although the tally in the chart on this page is). Can someone make whatever tweak is necessary to make it operational? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it. The tally template was receiving the wrong parameter because I started writing my nom in my sandbox originally. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Reinstating Administrative Permissions

I am requesting reinstatement of administrator status. I was suspended due to inactivity and am ready to return to active duties. Gerald Farinas (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Gerald Farinas (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a normal procedural resysop unless anyone can think of a reason why not, someone will do it within a day or so. Andrevan@ 02:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

CHU/S & CHUU

Resolved
 – Backlog cleared. –xenotalk 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey all! Not sure if it's my place whatsoever to leave this message here, but CHU/S has a pretty heavy backlog (93 requests), as well as some outstanding requests at CHUU selfishly, including my own. This message isn't to rush anybody to work, just ringing the door bell! :-) iMatthew / talk 01:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's usually handled by MBisanz. However, he is unavailable at the moment. I'm not sure whether or not he disclosed why, so I won't for now.—cyberpower OfflineMerry Christmas 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If we've gotten to the point where a single bureaucrat is handling all the name changes, we should probably either source more bureaucrats or consider moving name change into the administrative toolset. Weren't stewards supposed to be handling name changes globally by now? –xenotalk 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole "stewards will be doing renames soon" thing is why I'd stopped checking. What's the status of that? (If I wasn't about to head off to work I'd do some now; if the backlog is still there later, I'll definitely knock some out) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That is on hold for an indefinite period of time. –xenotalk 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The admin tools development (which includes bureaucrat/steward tools such as global rename) is on the WMF Platform team's roadmap, but honestly we're unsure when we will get to it. That said, KMehta (WMF), better known as Legoktm, is now a contractor for the Features team and has been doing some work on a global rename tool. I'll invite him to comment here. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, user:DGarry (WMF). –xenotalk 18:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
So most of the code for global rename is done, it's just waiting on review before deployment. I anticipate that it might take another 1-2 months. After that there are probably some social issues to be resolved before it gets used. That said, until the final SUL unification is done, local crats will still be needed, though probably with a much lower workload once global rename comes in. Legoktm (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I did one. I did a few a few weeks ago. It's not just one bureaucrat. Andrevan@ 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it does appear that MBisanz is handling a disproportionate amount of the CHU load. –xenotalk 17:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit, I feel particularly rusty when it comes to renames and that's been putting me off. Most of the renames in the list below that were done by me are random things like people asking me to rename them at editathons. I'll try to remember that there's a backlog here whenever I'm bored and trying to think of something to do! ;-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll make a point of being more active there. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens

Not sure if anyone noticed this. -- Mentifisto 00:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done the admin bit but will need a steward for CU and OS. Andrevan@ 00:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've done CU & OS now. Not sure what that arb case is about but hopefully not too much bloodshed is involved... -- Mentifisto 01:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Resysop request (Guerillero)

Guerillero (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
I think it is time for me to get my mop back, so I can do some old-fashioned admin work. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. I'll do it in 24 hours if another 'crat doesn't beat me to it. 28bytes (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you 28Bytes and congrats on your election --Guerillero | My Talk 04:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! And you are now officially an administrator (again). Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for flipping the switch --Guerillero | My Talk 06:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

RFBAG

Resolved

Could someone close Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678 2? Candidate has withdrawn. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If the candidate has withdrawn and no flag will be granted, you don't need a bureaucrat to close it. Andrevan@ 10:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
But someone needs to close it. (I can't, as I'm involved.) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If the candidate withdrew, nobody is going to call COI on that. Andrevan@ 20:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

vanish

Resolved

this user wants to vanish her talk. Dlohcierekim 01:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There would have to be an explicit request to change usernames made by the user I would imagine. -- John Reaves 22:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems like nobody understands why process for process' sake is bad these days. Looking at this contribution history, the user registered an account and probably doesn't want the name coming up in Google searches. User has no actual contributions so there's no attribution issues, so I'm going to rename this guy to some random string and call it a day. Andrevan@ 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The account shfarshid

Hello dear bureaucrats, I am user:shfarshid in Persian (Farsi) wikipedia, wikipedia commons and some other wiki projects like: wikisource, wiktionary, wikibooks, wikinews and etc. I want to have unified login. But unfortunately in English wikipedia there is a same account. I'm not sure but maybe I created this account myself some years ago and I forgot the password. Could I have this account too? I'm active in Persian wikipedia and a few days ago I nominated List of foreign affairs ministers of Iran and fortunately it is accepted as a featured list. 88.150.247.228 (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The place to make this request is at WP:USURP. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. 88.150.247.229 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Resigning

Resolved

I was looking at 28bytes recent resigning rationale, and I decided to follow his example by requesting removal of the tools, probably for good this time. Lately I been using IRC and Wikipedia extensively to hide from the fallout of something that happened three months ago in my personal life and I simply can't live like this. I need focus on my real life recovery instead and both IRC and having the tools is detrimental to my well-being. I will not go into further details. I won't quit Wikipedia entirely however, as I want to focus on creating content for the WikiCup, which is more useful to the health of this project I greatly cared about all these years, and my health. Thanks Secret account 23:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your service, Secret, and best wishes. Herostratus (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Tools... precious tools.

Resolved

Re: User talk:Ev#Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity & User talk:Ev#Notice of change.
Would someone be so kind as to give me my precious tools back? Thank you & happy 2014! --Ev (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be fine to go after the mandatory 24 hour wait. 'Crats: Ev was desysopped September 1, 2012 for inactivity and has not been inactive for three years or longer, so it should be a matter of time. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me (and I guess we're all on vacation), so done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2014#January 2014

Resolved

The following can be desysopped as of January 1, 2014 for inactivity:

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done; please do the needful with the relevant pages. Thank you, –xenotalk 23:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

On the bandwagon.

Resolved

Please also desyop me due to inactivity. Thanks much. Danger High voltage! 00:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been  Done; thank you for your service. –xenotalk 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A query about a "vanished user"

  • I am an admin but not a bureaucrat. I apologize if I have come in here without permission.
    User talk:Casliber#Deleted user is a discussion that arose when a user accidentally came across a consequence of the User:Vanished user ... and User talk:Vanished user ... system without knowing what it was for. He may have thought that User:Vanished user 19794758563875 was an ordinary but unusual personal username. He started that discussion about it, and asked me about performing any possible needed history-merge, since I am known for doing history-merges for people. Part way through the discussion (at about 20.00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)) I realized what the 'Vanished user' system is for, and tried to explain the situation without revealing too much. Is the "Vanished user ..." system something that I should keep quiet about in ordinary users' discussions? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Anthony Appleyard: I'm not a 'crat either, but from knowing this situation and other similar situations, the three userpages you restored for the vanished user probably should not have been restored for any reason. If you wanted to perform a history merge, then do so and re-delete the pages from active viewing on their old username. The former administrator you are talking about wasn't forced off Wikipedia, they wanted their userspace deleted and their account under the vanished user system. The existing subpages under their old username should be re-deleted and their talk page should go to the Vanished user userspace (since talk pages are not deleted). I don't see the justification for keeping the old username subpages restored for any reason. To answer your question though, it's not much of a secret and doesn't have to be. If something comes up about where a particular user went, you can reply by telling them they exercised their right to vanish and their account was renamed. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I feel like that is what is most likely the best interpretation of what should be done and what in line with the user's wishes to vanish. If 'crats want to chime in on the original question about "talking about" the vanished system, I'd like to hear it. Like I said, I personally feel like this isn't a secret and it can be openly discussed if questions arise about a user's disappearance. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with discussing Wikipedia's practices in relation to users who wish to vanish. They are clearly described at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. That said, I don't think it's appropriate (and goes against the courtesy accorded to the departing user) to discuss/speculate as to the reasons why particular users may have chosen to vanish.
It is usually not a good idea to restore/delete/merge pages belonging to a user who has chosen to vanish unless there are exceptionally good reasons to do so. I confess I'm struggling to follow exactly what occured here (and what interest the user who originally approached you had in the matter) but it doesn't look as if any harm has been done. WJBscribe (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot

User:Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot can be desysopped now. It has been inactive for well over a year and the owner, Chris G, has given permission to desysop it. [7] Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Is there another Bot that currently performs this function? WJBscribe (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Moe, do you know if we have a list of all currently approved adminbots? WJBscribe (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There's Category:Wikipedia adminbots but I don't know how complete it is. BencherliteTalk 12:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, WJBscribe: 7SeriesBOT, Cydebot, DYKUpdateBot, ListManBot, ProcseeBot, TFA Protector Bot and TorNodeBot are the remaining bots with sysop status. Former adminbots are listed at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/bots. I am unsure of who or what takes care of this task now, but YARCB no longer performed it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I cross-checked Category:Wikipedia adminbots against Special:ListUsers and removed a couple of bots from the category. It now has seven members and matches Moe's list. BencherliteTalk 14:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't a desysop be warranted?

Take it to ArbCom, 'crats are not police. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Moved from talkpage

I don't mean to kick an editor while their down, but wouldn't the circumstances surrounding Wikifione and SarahSteirch warrant at least consideration of desysopping? 108.45.104.69 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this situation, but there are a limited number of circumstances where bureaucrats may remove administrative privileges. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions. Also, this probably belongs overleaf. –xenotalk 14:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Presumably referring to this. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a precedent, see (User talk:Nichalp#Paid editing and Zithan [8]) but it is something ArbCom would need to decide - bureaucrats do not have the authority to desysop on their own initiative. In my opinion, there is a distinction to be drawn at the moment between these two users: Wifione has responded to the allegations of paid editing made, denied them and invited the Community to review his edits. SarahSteirch has remained silent regarding the issues and not responded to questions raised on her talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To echo what other bureaucrats have said, there is limited circumstances where they make the decision to sysop, resysop and desysop an account. This probably doesn't fall under one of those times. A bureaucrat is to the consensus of the community through its appropriate processes, and I don't see that here. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's rather interesting. So what your saying is even in cases of an extreme violation of one of Wikipedia's policies your hands are tied? If the offense was bad enough for them to lose their job, then certainly the admin tools should be revoked...at least temporarily. This case gives the impression that if the user is liked well enough, then the rules don't matter. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
What policy was violated? 2601:A:2500:2A9:1D4D:AEDA:BFDF:3204 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The appearance of it isn't particularly relevant; we can't desysop someone without their or Arbcom's request no matter who it is, what they did, or how much we like or dislike them. That's the task that has been given to us by the community, and doing anything more would seriously overstep our bounds, which is not at all the job of a 'crat. If there was truly an extreme (as in actual emergency, not as in you really really want to) need to desysop someone, you can always contact a steward; emergency removals of advanced permissions is their job, not ours. (As a side note, I'm not sure that "they got fired" is relevant to calling for a desysop for anyone, even if the organization doing the firing is the WMF.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If there's a real violation of core WP policies (like the Pillars) the Bureaucrats are able to do a lot. However the Paid Editing issue is at best a Guideline at this point. Your haranging around here trying to get a emergency desysop, haven't engaged the users about this concern, haven't opened a AN discussion thread, haven't petitioned ArbCom for the emergency desysop that is in the procedure. In general doing everything but following policy. We select bureaucrats for the reason that they are very hesitant to exercise their privileges in creative ways. Hasteur (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Either paid editing is allowed here or it isn't. Several editors have been banned for doing it and Sarah lost her job because she was accused of doing it. So if its not a policy and not a big deal, then we should accept it and move on and give her the job back. Same with dropping the issue with Wifione and the others that have been blocked in the past. As for the desysopping, I find it almost funny that when some admins do a task the community doesn't like they are calling for their head but others are having their talk pages covered in get well cards. This folks is why people don't stay. Obvious and blatant double standards being applied to some editors over others. Admins police the community, crat's should have the power to police the admins and deal with them as appropriate, arbcom should deal with Rogue bureaucrats. It shouldn't take Arbcom to remove the tools if the user no longer has the trust of the community. Its also not my responsibility to police admins, that is the responsibility of Arbcom and the bureaucrats and they have failed to do it so I dropped a subtle note. Its also not necessary to contact the user, they are not responding to any comments and not editing. Anyway, its clear it doesn't matter and no one cares and I am just "haranging" for suggesting that an admin who violated the communities trust be desysopped so I'm dropping it. But its cases like this that strain Wikipedia's credibility when they say they enforce rules evenly and fairly. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There's a vast gulf between "should have" and "do have"; there's also a vast gulf between "having the technical ability to do a thing" and "actually being allowed to do a thing". Whether I believe that 'crats should have the ability to police admins or not, the fact is that we don't. Policing admins is explicitly not, and never has been, a job of the 'crats. As established by consistent community consensus. And that's really all there is to say. And again, don't confuse Wikipedia and the WMF; Sarah's job is not ours to give back. The WMF's decision was based on the WMF's own rules and principles, not enwiki's. < Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
What you think bureaucrats should be differs very much from what bureaucrats actually are. They are not police, they never have been and never will be. They act according to what the community wants through its processes (such as RFA) and uses their buttons to verify it. We didn't elect them beat admins with a billystick when a couple of IPs think they did a no-no. ArbCom is the place to take this, if you want to talk about their adminship. If you want to talk about their job, then take it to the WMF, because 'crats can't control that either. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:01, 14 January 2014 (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.

Re-sysop request

Resolved

Hello bureaucrats, I have been inactive for a little over year, so admin permissions were suspended. Please could they be re-instated? Many thanks, Splash - tk 09:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine after the customary hold period. –xenotalk 15:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
As the 24-hour mark has (long since) passed without objection, I've restored the admin bit. Welcome back, Splash! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Splash - tk¿ 20:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cindamuse

The RfA is now due by about 15 hours. Is there any bureaucrat discussion that is likely to happen ? ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I'm biased as the nominator, the RFA is clearly a pass and I see no reason why there would be a need for a 'crat chat. At 85%, and with some opposes being somewhat reluctant and some well voiced strong support (including from editors who have revisited the RFA after oppose comments) it's pretty obvious what the outcome is. And the usual reminder, that the end time is just the minimum the RFA must run; I'm sure someone will be along shortly to do the honours. Pedro :  Chat  15:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought so, just asked for clarification. Fair enough. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done by WJBScribe. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Desysop request for User:Nightscream

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream#Nightscream desysopped, please desysop User:Nightscream. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Keithbob

This is a FYI about a potential hornet's nest. Given Jimmy's longterm and vocal position on WP:COI, and his long involvement with T-M editors, I'm not sure how this edit squares with WP:CANVASS. Anyhow ... over to you guys,  Roger Davies talk 08:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I apologise, Roger, if my action violated WP:CANVASS. It was not my intention. I noticed a few overlaps between the two users, and since Mr Wales had a rather intense conversation about COI with one of them, I just thought he might be interested in the other editor who has some suspicious activity seeking power (esp. given the claims of some PR companies that they have "administrators" in position).--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The apology is unnecessary ;) I haven't really formed an opinion on whether it violated WP:CANVASS or not though Jimmy's page is one of the most watched on wikipedia (3,000+). Usually, though, the RFA community is pretty good at ferreting out irregularities.  Roger Davies talk 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Jimmy has consistently stated he considers his talk page exempt of CANVASSing due to his open-door policy. This seems to cause some confusion, however.... Rgrds. --64.85.215.193 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Jimmy considers it exempt, but that doesn't mean that we have to; I'm not sure I buy that it should be exempt in general. Nevertheless, Jimmy's page is widely watched and trafficked enough that I doubt this particular case is of any real concern as far as canvassing goes; there's no selective notification of people that would support the position. Still, though: if it were me, I would avoid such posts in the future, ColonelHenry; even avoiding the question of canvassing is probably for the best. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I've left a note about this thread at the RfA for the closing bureaucrat. –xenotalk 21:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

comments seem to be continuing

at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keithbob Dlohcierekim 15:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since reverted by Moe Epsilon. –xenotalk 16:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Snow?

Resolved
 – Closed.

Candidate has not edited in 20 hours. Consensus seems to be building, and this seems unlikely to pass. Dlohcierekim 01:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

Admin Alpha voluntary turned in the tools, not under a cloud. When he wishes to be resysopped, instead of asking bureaucrats for the bit back, which is his right, he decides to go through an RfA again. Unfortunately the RfA doesn't go well, and the !vote is not sufficient to get him resysopped. Can Alpha still ask for the bit back from bureaucrats, or does the intervening RfA take away that option? Do we have a policy, or precedent, that covers this? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about precedent, and I didn't find any relevant policy with a quick spot-check, but I would assume that a failed RfA takes away that option. It'd probably be tricky if the RfA fell into the discretionary range, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I know very little about the process - I wasn't aware that there was a "discretionary range". BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
(Non-bureaucrat comment) I'd say if the former admin chose to go through RfA it closes the other door. Just my two cents though. --AdmrBoltz 20:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, if you failed an RFA, then it shows that a significant portion of the community doesn't support your tools being restored. I guess you would have to put the situation in the context of what it actually would be, if it would be successful: former admin Alpha fails an RFA, a community-wide discussion whether they should have tools. A month later he comes here and asks for a restoration of the tools. Bureaucrat Beta sees he failed RFA, but unilaterally restores the tools anyways. That seems really dubious, and unlikely to occur. A bureaucrat acts within the will of the community, and I don't see them disregarding an RFA. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This has happened before and consensus seemed to be no, they cannot get the tools back. I'll see if I can find the actual case. -- John Reaves 21:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
That would be great. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't find any example that fits my vague recollection of this happening. Too many moons. -- John Reaves 16:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is some previous discussion on this issue: [9], [10] and see question 7 from my RfB...WJBscribe (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the intervening RFA voids the option to have a crat restore the bit. Yes, this does create some philosophical inconsistencies, but I think it's the right answer. MBisanz talk 23:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem relevant why the RfA was opposed. If the opposes were substantive then they could be a bar to resysopping on request. On the other hand, if as sometimes happens the opposes were of the "oppose because he can get the tools back by asking, so why do we have to bother with the RfA?" variety, as happens sometimes, then it would be odd to then turn around and deny resysopping based upon them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For example. -- John Reaves 16:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd think that if Admin Alpha requested his bit be restored under those conditions, that would consist of a cloud in and of itself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of looking at it, Sarek, I hadn't considered that. My thanks to everyone who weighed in on this. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the original question said the administrative privileges were not relinquished under a cloud, I don't believe subsequent actions by Admin Alpha can retroactively change this. However, I think the RfA is essentially a reconfirmation RfA, and so a failure to pass it indicates a lack of support from the community for assuming an administrative role. isaacl (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That's how I'd expect the 'crats to read it, yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the excessively slow response. I agree with MBisanz that an unsuccessful RfA voids the option to restore the bit. There is precedent, however, to restore the bit after a withdrawn RfA: see RfA, thread 1, thread 2. Nevertheless, the situation from >6 years back is a bad comparison... because it was a complete and utter trainwreck/dramafest, and I don't think the situation alluded to in this thread is similar. Maxim(talk) 19:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dieter Simon

Resolved

After being listed for pending desysop for inactivity, Dieter Simon returned to announce a 'Notification of Resignation' on his talk page and my talk page:

This is to notify you all that I am no longer able to take part as an Admin or Contributor, as time has caught up with me and I am now eighty-three years old. Health problems are causing me to cease work on what I always enjoyed as a most fruitful and interesting activity, that of contributing to one of the greatest undertakings I have ever had the good fortune to take part in. I wish all of you well and that Wikipedia may continue to thrive Dieter Simon (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I did point him here, should he want to resign the tools formally, but I have mixed feelings. Should we treat that as a resignation of his tools? I would really hate to bother Dieter repeatedly with inactivity notices now that he has said this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to draw a technical distinction between a "Notification of Resignation" here and on a user's talkpage. Dieter Simon's intentions are clear and I will remove his account's admin rights accordingly. He can of course ask for them back should he change is mind. WJBscribe (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing the bot flag from ZedlikBot

ZedlikBot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hi! Please remove the bot flag from ZedlikBot. I requested it ([11]) to add interwiki links, but after introduction of Wikidata this is not needed anymore as well as I do not plan to run the bot at enwiki in the foreseeable future. Thank you! —zedlik (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Please let us know if you need it again :). Pakaran 21:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, thank you! :) —zedlik (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request

Please remove the administrator premission from Kafziel, according to this remedy from the recently closed case.
Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 20:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Pakaran 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Crat chat

Resolved
 – Request closed. –xenotalk 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fellow bureaucrats, your comments and analysis will be appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 3/Bureaucrat discussion. Maxim(talk) 13:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I'll close this in about six hours. –xenotalk 16:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's been 48 hrs + and no bureaucrat has so far opined in favour of a successful outcome. WJBscribe (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2014#February 2014

The following can be desysopped as of February 1, 2014:

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Moe Epsilon, I've desysopped all accounts and have left notifications on all admins' talk pages to let them know that their respective adminships have been removed. Please do let me know if I have missed anything. Best. Acalamari 22:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2014 has been updated accordingly. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've updated WP:FORMER. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone need an extra 'crat?

Resolved
 – Tool access restored after 24 hour waiting period.

Following my resignation from ArbCom in December, I decided to take an indefinite break from Wikipedia, and requested that my 'crat bit be removed. (I removed my admin bit myself prior to doing so.) I've decided to return to active editing, and would like to help out with 'crat and admin tasks as needed. Could a 'crat review the circumstances of my departure and, if appropriate, restore my bureaucrat, administrator, and edit filter bits after the standard 24-hour waiting period? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Rules about admin resignation & return have been established for a while now, but just out of curiosity, was it ever stated that they extended to 'crats also? I'd love to see you back in action but would hate for... "some people" to find reason to complain. However, since there has never been, to the best of my knowledge, any suggestion of wrong-doing related to edit filter management, it's my pleasure to restore that part right away.  EFM restored ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Salvidrim! 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Good to have you back on the team. — Scott • talk 17:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I would have guessed that a 'crat bit requires a steward. Is that fact, tradition, but not fact, or my fevered imagination? However, welcome back. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Sphilbrick. No, 'crats can set the 'crat flag, they just can't un-set it; removal has to be done by steward. 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My question pertained more to the general local project rules surrounding a 'crat bit restore; who actually presses the button is of little consequence. WP:RESYSOP does include 'crats, so no worries there. I also think the resignation of admin/crat was not done "under a cloud", because the issues were discussed specifically around the ArbCom nomination and not the rest. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)x2 Glad to see you're back, 28bytes. You know better than most how these things go, of course. I don't think there's anything in the way of a cloud preventing your return; it doesn't seem to me that anyone felt that you needed to hand in your admin and 'crat bits, or was seeking such an action, only that you should've resigned from Arbcom (which of course you did). I'd be comfortable with restoring both, though input from other 'crats is probably needed. @Salvidrim!: WP:RESYSOP explicitly includes 'crats in its wording, so no worries there. And yeah, Sphilbrick, 'crats can add the 'crat bit but not remove it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Out of caution from my own inactivity, I checked the talk page archives as well as the (unanimously refused) arbitration case at [12]. The questions raised were solely regarding your upcoming term as an arbitrator. Like Writ Keeper, I see nothing resembling a cause for concern about returning either bureaucrat or administrator flags. Pakaran 17:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Welcome back 28bytes. :) For what it's worth seeing how I'm not a crat, my 2p is that there's no issues here with restoring the bits. -- KTC (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you in anyway going to use the extra tools in any «investigation» of Jechochman? I have seen the open letter you have posted to Jehochman with his full name for all to see and google on the internet; a nasty thing to do in my opinion and it smacks of revenge. I do not trust your ethics, unfortunately, but I know of course I don’t have any veto here. Iselilja (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, what? You think I "outed" Jehochman? To answer your question, no, I have no intention of using any tools in relation to Jehochman. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think you outed him; I know his name is public. Posting an open letter using his full name with various allegations on an internet site is still an unworthy thing to do in my opinion and a behaviour very below what I belive should be the standard of a "trusted" Wikipedian. Iselilja (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Iselilja, I'm sorry, but you comments clearly show you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to post links, because frankly if you feel qualified to opine here at an obscure board of en.wp then you should know. As for User:Pakaran I'm disturbed you're still here. Please do run RFB again, so the community can get rid of another legacy bureaucrat whose out of touch. I'm sure you won't run, obviously. Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I know what I am talking about and stand by my comment. Iselilja (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Uh, what's with the hate, Pedro? I'm not digging it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There's no hate, and I'm confused why you characterise my comment that way. Iselilja claims that 28 bytes "outed" an editor which is rubbish, and Pakaran got RFB back in the age of the dinosaurs, didn't edit for donkeys years (during the *real* period of cultural change on wp), and rocks on up every now and again with no mandate. That's not hate Writ- that's facts. Do try harder. Pedro :  Chat  23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Pedro, which specific bureaucratic action(s) of mine are you concerned about? I mentioned already in this thread that I was cautious due to being inactive, and as such, I'm certainly willing to learn and improve my process. Pakaran 00:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If a re-RFA were required in the same manner for administrators who went inactive and came back, we'd barely have administrators. Unless Parakan has done something you find questionable, I don't see any reason whatsoever for him to run again. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there's absolutely no reason any bureaucrat can deny this request (as anyone who actually keeps up with "the rules" knows) and it should be done after the customary 24 hour wait. Pedro :  Chat  08:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm sorry to have to say what I'm about to say, because I like 28bytes and would very much like to return the permissions he resigned without demure. My main reservation comes from this having been followed by this. Simply put, 28bytes being the one to close that discussion was wrong. One cannot opine strongly on whether an article should or should not be kept under one name in one forum, and then turn up under another name under another forum and claim to be in a position to impartially evalute the outcome. For me, that was an error of judgment that astonished me coming from 28bytes, who I would have expected to know far better. It goes to the heart of what both admins and bureaucrats are expected to do. I do not know, and don't propose to research, whether it is an insolated example. I hope so.
    As others say, the focus of the discussion at the time 28bytes resigned was on his ArbCom appointment, not his other permissions. And it seems to me that if someone wants to take that matter further, they are as able to do that now as when 28bytes resigned so it's not as if he escaped scrutiny through not having the tools for a month. So, on balance, I lean towards agreeing that the tools can be restored under the current policy. I cannot however join others in treating this return with unqualified joy now that I have seen this side to 28bytes that I really do not like. WJBscribe (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
    You're right, WJBscribe. I've given it a lot of thought since Elonka first criticized the close on that basis in December, and I understand completely where you're coming from. I wouldn't have closed it as a delete if I didn't sincerely believe the consensus was to do so, but the fact is, my comments agreeing with that eventual consensus may give the impression I would have closed it that way regardless. It was a mistake to both comment on it and close it, and it's a mistake I've learned from, and it's a mistake that won't happen again. 28bytes (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The resignation from arbcom was a voluntary decision, not one that was required. Jimbo also gave an alternative to resignation, in reconfirmation. I did not see any hint of requirement to step down from being an admin or crat - as such, I do not believe this was under a cloud and so WP:RESYSOP applies. No issues with returning bits after 24h waiting period. WormTT(talk) 12:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with my fellow crats that the tools should be returned after the waiting period. MBisanz talk 14:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Access to the administrator and bureaucrat maintenance tool suites have been restored. Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Avi! 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, I realize I'm late to the party, but I do think there are significant admin issues here. I've raised the one I'm worried about at 28byte's talk page. Just noting a (belated) objection here. I'd have brought this up sooner, but I'd figured he'd resigned under a cloud and so it wasn't worth raising the issue. And I don't watch this page so I only noticed it when it showed up on his page. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing there. I feel a reconfirmation RfA is in order. I can't imagine how anyone could argue this wasn't under a cloud (and yes, I've read the arguments above). He clearly violated the trust of the community in multiple ways and used the tools as part of that. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi all. Is there an appeal process for this decision that he didn't resign under a cloud? I'm guessing the appeal would just go back to you all, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    Although I did not weigh in here, I do think that a reasonable action could be a mandatory RFC or pseudo-reconfirmation RFA, which would be looking for a community consensus that in fact 28bytes' cloud extended to his bureaucrat permission, as a general questioning of his competence as an admin/bureaucrat and not just ArbCom. I haven't read up on the circumstances so I'm not myself taking that position. Andrevan@ 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    Humm, although I can see the obvious downsides, I think I'd prefer an appeal to the 'crats over the circus an RfC would be. Are you all willing to hear an appeal? If after that you all still feel there is no need for a reconfirmation RfA I'll not raise the issue again in any forum--I just want a chance to argue why a reconfirmation RfA is appropriate in this case and a promise that you all will try your best to fairly reevaluate the situation. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    As I've said so many times, crats don't innovate; crats do what the community tells them to do. If you would like to amend Wikipedia:CRAT#Permissions to include the option of an appeal of a resysop request to the crats, I think that would be fine, but I doubt you will find crats willing to entertain a process created on the fly, particularly one not created at the initiation of the target user. MBisanz talk 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    I'd think a body such as the 'crats could review their own calls for errors. I don't think that's innovation, it's common sense. But if that's what you all feel is correct, I'll hunt down wherever the appeal belongs. Could others comment on this too? Hobit (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hobit, under the current policies and guidelines, 28bytes was completely entitled to be allowed to regain access to the maintenance toolsets he resigned. There was nothing indicating that he was in significant danger of losing the toolsets due to his actions and that the resignation was performed to avoid sanction. If you have a personal issue with his judgement, the options are the same as with any other editor: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests; as regards our role as bureaucrats, guideline and policy has been followed and this is not the proper venue in which to follow up on your displeasure. -- Avi (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't see how it can be said that he didn't resign "for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." He ducked out in the middle of discussions about his actions. It certainly seemed likely to me there would be an admonishment or more. And I know I dropped the stick because he resigned (and I'd assumed, under a cloud). But I think I'm just spitting in the wind at this point, and as Mr. Croce indicated, that isn't very smart. Hobit (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the consensus of the majority of respondents, including the bureaucrats who are tasked by the project to make the determination of the circumstances under which members relinquish their tool access, respectfully disagrees with you. If everything were 100% clear, there would be no need for human judgment; once there is human judgment, there is almost inevitably bound to be disagreement. In my understanding of the matter, there was no point at which 28bytes was in any danger of losing his tool access, and thus even were he be to have been admonished for his actions elsewhere and his disclosures whilst running for ArbCom, there was no imminent or significant chance that he would have had to relinquish the tools, so his resignation was completely eligible for a self-requested reinstatement. Thank you for both voicing your opinion as well as accepting the conclusion of this action as proper under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not certain I agree it was proper, but I do realize a lot of people I respect believe it was. In my experience that often means that I'm in the wrong and I'll realize it later. We'll see. In any case, I'm pleased that he's agreed not to close discussion where he has a strong opinion in the future. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Another request to restore admin flag

By a strange coincidence I also decided to log in today only to find myself de-adminned. Granted, I haven't been making any edits all year but I still visit Wikipedia often. Just didn't have a reason to edit anything. So, I'd like to request to have my status back.  Grue  17:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As above, I don't see any reason not to once the 24 hours have expired. Again, welcome back. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Everything's in order after the mandatory hold. Pakaran 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
As Writ Keep and Pakaran have said, you can have the admin rights back. But if you don't mind indulging me, I'm curious - you haven't used your account's admin rights in nearly 3 years, why do you want them now? WJBscribe (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Just in case I want to look at a deleted article, or something. Mostly just feel bad about losing them.  Grue  12:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
A total of 3 non-Admin. edits in 2 years! Admin. isn't a bauble. Why not just ask for re-affirmation via an RfA? I know you don't "need" to but to me this is an example of this process (established by the community 2 years ago) being clearly and simply gamed. Leaky Caldron 12:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"just in case I want to look at a deleted article" - that's sufficient reason to have extraordinary rights? Yeah, go through a reconfirmation RFA with that as your reasoning, please. DP 12:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Admin rights aren't extraordinary. I haven't abused them. As per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Resysopping I do not need to go through another RfA to get them back. Did the rules change? In that case a longer heads-up than 1 month would've been nice.  Grue  18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, formally you don't; ethically it sounds like you should. Meh. DP 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Luckily bureaucrats don't act on one editor's ethics as compared to the consensus of the rest of the community. There's no reason for him to go through a re-confirmation RFA and policy doesn't dictate that he should either. Grue should be resysopped. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see I've been resysopped already, but I'll still answer. Ethically, I don't think I did anything to lose the adminship. And obviously a person who has been away for a year will not pass an RfA, which is why the resysopping procedure exists (at least that's my understanding). Nor should I be expected to heavily use my admin rights right away, because I'd have to catch up on the new rules/bureaucracy before I start banning users or deleting stuff. So that's why I answered how I did, the immediately practical tool that I'd definitely use for research. I assure you that my actions would not be used for any nefarious purposes.  Grue  19:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Again.....

Unresolved
 – Request withdrawn. –xenotalk 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I took a vacation of few months, got my life straightened out after a health scare, and I'm ready to kill AFD backlogs again (while removing everything from my watchlist as I'm still going to focus on articles first and foremost). 24 hour wait for the tools back? Sorry if I'm annoying with the back and forth switching but when my health/personal life is bad I feel I shouldn't have the tools as I can't focus correctly, if my health is normal, I can be of use. Thanks Secret account 21:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Recuse on second thought, I commented on this on IRC. There's enough active crats that there should be no need for me to un-recuse, and I hope that in any event the history of this page is not seen as a black mark. Pakaran 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth; @Beeblebrox: made a recall request for Secret. Just thought I'll state it here since it is relevant. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I realize the crats are not bound by decisions made in recall proceedings and that Secret did not resign "under a cloud" but perhaps he could voluntarily put this request on hold while we see what the feeling is among the ten people he asked to fulfill this role? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Secret, is this a good idea? Are your health/personal issues really so transient that it's a bad idea for you to have the tools one month but a good the next? You judged it appropriate that you be without the tools for a while. Shouldn't we respect that decision of yours? If you just request them back the next day, what does resigning them actually accomplish? My point is not that these requests are "annoying", just that I now have no idea what's best for you/best for the project any more. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Per User talk:Secret/recall, I'll ask again here in late June/early July if my health and personal life gets under control in order to be trusted with the tools. As consensus there shows, this is not "under a cloud" and I could probably ask here without much controversy. I will refuse going back to RFA as it brings back bad memories. I'll invite everyone, including the crats to bring up with further discussion there and this be archived. Thanks Secret account 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to restore admin flag

Hello,

Funny enough I decided to log in this time and noticed my three new messages regarding the removal of my admin flag. I'd like to request a restoration if possible.

Thanks,

--Deathphoenix ʕ 16:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, after the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, I don't see why not. Welcome back, even if just for the space of a few edits. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing you back, after the hold. This was clearly a routine inactivity removal. Pakaran 21:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
As Writ Keep and Pakaran have said, you can have the admin rights back. But if you don't mind indulging me, I'm curious and ask the same as I asked another below - you haven't used your account's admin rights in nearly 5 years, why do you want them now? WJBscribe (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
WJBscribe asks this question at this board quite frequently, despite being told that many find it inappropriate. I wish other bureaucrats would advise him to stop pestering users who ask for clear policy-based permissions changes. It would be much more appropriate to ask any such questions on the talk page of the user after they have had the permissions restored. That way, it does not appear to be related to the official process in any way. 50.45.159.42 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello 50.45. Please provide some diffs to support the assertion: (a) that I ask this question frequently (I have no particular recollection of having asked it before); and (b) that it has been suggested to me that it is inappropriate. Also, if you have an issue with my conduct, feel free to pursue it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I think you'll be surprised at how many users are concerned by the idea of someone returning from long inactivity to request permissions that have not used in over 5 years. I rather think such people should be subject to more scrutiny, not less. Speaking of scrutiny - did you post from an IP address because you forgot to sign in, or is there an account here that you don't wish your comment to be linked to? WJBscribe (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I lean towards the latter over the former. MBisanz talk 12:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done, there is no reason not to carry out this request. Pakaran 18:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin bit restoration

Hello, former admin here, was un-sysopped due to inactivity. If I'm understanding the rules correctly, I am within the time limits allowed - it looks like my admin rights were removed a little over year ago. At any rate, I would like admin rights back, if possible. Thanks for your time. Friday (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Friday, welcome back! I don't see anything out of order, so you should be good to go after the 24-hour waiting period. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done As no objections were raised within the 24-hour period, your adminship has been restored. Welcome back, Friday. Acalamari 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin rights

AuburnPilot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I requested the removal of my admin rights about 8 months ago (28 June 2013) due to a lack of time to contribute. I'm back and would like the bit back as well. Thanks! --auburnpilot talk 04:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any issues and I see no reason why I or another bureaucrat can't resysop you once the 24-hour waiting period is over. In the meantime, welcome back, AuburnPilot! Acalamari 08:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This looks totally in order from my perspective to carry out once the hold expires. Pakaran 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all! It's nice to be back. --auburnpilot talk 04:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wizardman

Resolved
 – No bureaucrat action required.

According to his contributions, it seems like he'd retired (see user page and talk page). Sad to see him go. Hopefully he'll be back. ///EuroCarGT 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is bad news; I hope it's only temporary. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The edit summary of the next to last edit:

four ccis in a day and i know no new people will probably help.

Oddly, while those working on Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Brianis19 aren't new, it has 100 entries, and 95 have been addressed in under 48 hours. CCI's often take months, This one is admittedly small, but it is being handled quickly. (I normally hate ecs, but I was pleasantly surprised to encounter one while working on this one). That said, I know Wizardman worked diligently (that word just isn't enough) on CCIs, so will be missed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Meno25

Resolved
 – No bureaucrat action required.

Hi, I'm dropping a notice that earlier today steward and enwiki admin User:Meno25 briefly removed his +sysop bit for test purposes. I do not know whether this should be tracked on former admins or such lists but thought it best to advise the 'crats. Snowolf How can I help? 05:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean to resign. I was just testing steward tools. Your point is taken into account and this will not be repeated again. --Meno25 (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
/me raises eyebrow. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, speaking for myself, I've considered removing my own bit to test something, too; I don't think it's a big deal. Probably best not to make a habit of it, for drama avoidance if nothing else, but I wouldn't worry about it, really. I don't think it needs to be tracked anywhere in particular; it's there in the user rights log anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big deal, but I believe there's a test wiki for this sort of checking... if I'm remembering correctly, can someone link to it here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: testwiki: or test2wiki:? — Revicomplaint? 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Steward hat on, this was a very ill-thought out test; en.wikipedia is not a test wiki. (At least this wasn't the CU flag like he did on ar.wikipedia). That being said, this was a notification to add him to the former lists, since he is technically a former admin who was resysopped. (@Moe Epsilon:) --Rschen7754 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
He is no former admin who was resysopped. It was just a technical flip which we should all forgive and forget asap, as long as he does not repeat it which he will hardly do. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I had added his name to list of resysopped, on the main of WP:FORMER, but I tend to list every single flips of switches, so it matches logs exactly (and it makes it easier to track how long it has been checked). Even if it's a test on meta, or however it's performed, I don't really discriminate or assign blame. I'm sure we all don't hate him now over it. :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#March 2014

The following users can be desysopped as of 3 March, 2014

Thank you. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this here, TheGeneralUser. Acalamari 10:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why that report has refused to run via cron since I moved from Toolserver to Labs. I'll run it manually today and set a reminder for myself until I can get it fixed. My apologies for the inconvenience, — madman 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly =) –xenotalk 22:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

user name

Resolved
 – Referred to WP:CHU.

hello. can you change my user name to "Koolak". i want to have a english name for my user name. thank you. ♔ Koolak| کولاک (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. --///EuroCarGT 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There is already a user named Koolak. If you wish to usurp their name, follow the instructions at WP:USURP; otherwise, feel free to choose another name, that is not in use, and place a request here. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari

Resolved
 – Self-request fulfilled; user not eligible for automatic reinstatement. –xenotalk 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Kaldari (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock puppetry by an admin, please remove my admin bit. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I'm sorry to hear that, Kaldari. Let me know if you want to keep any of the sub-package rights, and I'll apply them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I asked the question in the ANI thread, and it was correctly pointed out that this would be a better place to ask. It seems fairly clear, but to avoid later debate, can crat's confirm that they consider this resignation under a cloud?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: As per Risker: "Full disclosure, Kaldari and I spoke yesterday before he posted this statement, and part of that discussion was weighing the risks and benefits of resignation of administrator tools against the inevitable request for arbitration. I agree that his admin resignation was a better result for everyone involved (especially the community) than a long, drawn-out and nasty Arbcom case would have been." It is pretty clear that this resignation was performed to prevent a situation in which the application of sanctions, including forced removal of the privilege, was a distinct and reasonable possibility. As such, in my opinion, Kaldari is not eligible for the automatic reinstatement of access upon request but must demonstrate that consensus for his access exists by undergoing a new RfA. -- Avi (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: Given that Kaldari's whole reason for resigning was his sockpuppetry, I would regard this as under a cloud: If Kaldari ever decides that he wants to be an admin again, he'll have to undergo a new request for adminship. If he were to come back here in a few weeks or months to ask to have the tools returned to him, it would not be an uncontroversial resysop and, as you say, Cube lurker, there would be a debate as the circumstances surrounding his resignation would no doubt be raised then. Acalamari 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: Per my colleagues, not that there's any need for me to post. This is a situation in which Arbitration action, had Kaldari not resigned, was not just plausible, but arguably even probable, so of course it is under circumstances of controversy. Pakaran 23:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything said above; please indulge a clarifying question from me. If, for whatever reason, Kaldari returned tomorrow; saying he instead wanted Arbcom to hear a full case: is he precluded from this minute from regaining the bit without an RfA, or could it be reinstated?—John Cline (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I would not restore adminship to him under those circumstances, either; if he were to request an ArbCom case, then he'd have to undergo it without the tools. Short of an ArbCom case or motion saying otherwise, Kaldari needs a new request for adminship to regain his sysop status. Acalamari 09:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting discussion point. While I cannot of course speak for the committee, I'd very surprised indeed if any former sysop had the tools restored for the purpose of a case because there's no need to do so. As another general observation, I'd be even more surprised if the committee decided at the end of a case to unilaterally return the tools when an editor has resigned them. The tendency of the committee over the past few years has been to defer absolutely to the community over the restoration of the tools and the route for getting them back is via a fresh RFA.  Roger Davies talk 10:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Roger - as you're not giving input as a member of ARBCOM can I add you're not actually giving any useful input whatsoever? Please - clear of back to pontificating on arbitration related matters - your input here is valueless (just read the load of pony and trap you wrote above with a clear head). There's a good chap. Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Point of Order If he still maintains editinterface permission, and is still able to perform administrative actions on enwp, as is evident here, is not arbcom intervention still necessary? Rgrds. --64.85.216.160 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I think I agree with 64. If Kaldari still has editinterface permission, there is little, if any, significant change caused by the desysopping. Since Kaldari has used this to protect his talk page to avoid discussion of his socking, I think there may be some unresolved issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • There's no need for me to comment as a crat on the merits of this (though I agree that protecting his own talk page, rather than going to RFPP, wasn't the brightest idea); it's being discussed already at WP:ANI [13], and it's not technically possible for enwiki bureaucrats to remove that specific permission even if we were called upon unambiguously to do so. Pakaran 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: Thanks, Rschen7754. I note the discussion here (including by an arbitrator) as well as the broad base of support on the relevant ANI thread that was closed only due to a misunderstanding of policy. As such, I hereby move that Kaldari, in his role as a volunteer editor, be constrained until further action from using his global rights to perform administrative actions on the English Wikipedia. In other words, the situation will be as if he were desysoped for cause, until the arbitrators and community tell us otherwise. Do I see any objections? Pakaran 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: I concur with my colleagues opinions above and Pakaran's request (also above). MBisanz talk 21:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: May I just take the opportunity to reiterate that I think that the "under a cloud" language does more harm than good? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • What's a good alternative then? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • "Under circumstances of controversy". This has been discussed at length a few times in the archives, and I remember one lengthy comment by Risker pointing out that Arbcom stopped using the "cloud" terminology long ago, but haven't been able to find it. Pakaran 13:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, what's with the overuse of {{cratnote}} in this thread? I think this board (unlike say WP:CHU where new users probably struggle to know who is who) is one where we can probably expect people to know who we are without a bold comment to that effect before each post... WJBscribe (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-bureaucrat comment) - Perhaps this was deliberate, as the subject has drawn considerably more attention than many recent notices and threads here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I'd like to request some clever designers to come up with useful templates missing from the Crat armoury, notably: {{cratpuzzled}}, {{cratarguing}}, {{cratjoking}} and {{cratannoyed}}. Perhaps the most useful would be {{cratsayspleasedoreadthenamechangeinstructionsproperlyweknowittakestimebutitsavestimeinthelongrun}}. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think the "under a cloud" language is clear, and here's a great example for next time someone says "what does under a cloud refer to?" "Circumstances of controversy" doesn't seem significantly better, but I suppose it means roughly the same thing. Andrevan@ 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Dweller: Just a suggestion, but many of those don't seem needed. I think this thread was a prime example of the over use of the cratnote template. I would suggest that in the future that template be restricted to ex cathedra statements/actions (i.e. Acting in the explicit role of Bureaucrat) rather than blatant flagging of "Look at me, I have a special title". I used to very much in the {{NAO}} croud, but I realize it just establishes a division of us/them (or haves/havenots). Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(Non-bureaucrat comment)I think you may have misunderstood Dweller (talk · contribs)'s remarks; perhaps he should have used the {{cratjoke}} template. LFaraone 19:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh I did understand the satire, but sometimes the best way to put an end to unrestrained sillyness like this is to deadpan a response to remind people to get back on track. Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Some other times, the best way to put an end to 60+ hour-old silliness is to let it stay dead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Attack in account name

Resolved
 – account renamed.

This user page was an attack on the named person/company. I have deleted it and blocked the account, but I think the account should be renamed. JohnCD (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Usually attack names should just be hidden by oversight team. Please email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. –xenotalk 13:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Accounts impersonating real people

Resolved
 – Relevant accounts renamed. –xenotalk 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteers Marquis de la Eirron and Scholarscentral have sock accounts in the names of real identifiable people, which could cause the named people to be wrongly associated with sockpuppetry or COI editing (I have found two {{connected contributor}} tags on BLP talk pages where Marquis de la Eirron socks were wrongly assumed to be the subject.) Can accounts be renamed for this reason? January (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:IMPERSONATION the account should be blocked as a minimum DP 10:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing the accounts are already blocked and the concern is that the names are in article histories, making it look like the "real" person under that name made the edit and is now a blocked editor. There aren't enough links provided here to verify, but assuming that is the case, a rename of the already blocked accounts might make sense in some of these. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's one of my concerns, the other is the user pages with sockpuppetry notices on them (example). January (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please desysop me

Please desyop me. Thank you. Xavexgoem (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) 05:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Done; thanks for your work as an admin and editor. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. It's sad to see you go, but that's how life goes. I wish you the best in your future endeavours. → Call me Hahc21 06:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go. I couldn't help but note this edit. What went wrong? Is there anything that could be done to improve things so you'd reconsider? WJBscribe (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No, but thank you. I haven't been active for long time, and so much of what I want to do requires what I'm basically doing at my job. I might do a copyedit here and there, but it'll be as an IP. --216.142.211.25 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

RTV please

Personal reasons. Email is not enabled. Thank you. — Daniel 05:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Request was withdrawn. –xenotalk (written into archive) 11:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle four

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WOWIndian

An expired, never-transcluded RfA for a user who has since been indefinitely blocked. Could someone deal with it? --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Mindcontrol policy

Has the community established any guidance on when it is appropriate for us to use the Special:Mindcontrol extension, for example sending subliminal messagesFNORD to encouraged permanently banned users to discontinue editing?FNORD I plan not to use itFNORD except in clear emergencies, but I feel there's a need for a discussion in this day and age, before it's too lateFNORD. Note that the links above will appear redFNORD to non-bureaucrats. Pakaran 19:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's appropriate to use when preventing people from creating lame April Fool's jokesFNORD. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
There is some dispute as to its effectiveness, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
So it would seem.FNORD Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If you were supposed to know how the telepathy extension works, then you already would. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Resolved
 – Thank you for your offer to serve. –xenotalk

Please kindly remove my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheGeneralUser subpage. I have withdrawn my nomination. Unfortunately this has been one of the most saddest days in my life. Thanks a lot to everbody who supported me. Best wishes to everyone. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I already took care of this. → Call me Hahc21 02:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Inactive administrators/bureaucrat: April 2014

I have removed the administrator flag from 10 inactive administrators and requested the removal of User:Taxman's bureaucrat flag at m:SRP. With thanks to all these users for their service. –xenotalk 18:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My thanks too, especially to Taxman. Also, I note that he was the last of 'crats appointed in 2005/2006. Makes quite a gap in {{Bureaucrat timeline}}. WJBscribe (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deceased admin

There's a report at AN that administrator Cindamuse has passed away. NE Ent 12:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Very sad news. I have removed the sysop rights from this account. WJBscribe (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RfA

Resolved

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nhajivandi appears to be going nowhere. Can somebody snow close it? buffbills7701 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"WP:NOTNOW" closures do not generally require a bureaucrat. –xenotalk 12:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't close it. I had voted oppose earlier. buffbills7701 12:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I closed it, my first RFA closure so hopefully I did it correct. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, and to Nhajivandi for their offer of service. –xenotalk 13:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Technique for creating account for user with existing SUL and range-blocked IP

Just in case it comes up in the future, steward User:Ajraddatz suggested that this problem can be solved by creating the account with a temporary name, emailing a temporary password to the user, renaming and then asking them to unify. There's a lengthy discussion that includes a number of other tricks that failed, so we should anticipate future requests. Pakaran 00:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that as you create the user account "Pakaran temp" and then rename it, the end user gets an email where he is encouraged to log in as "Pakaran temp". You will have to send the user another email telling him the renamed account so that he understands to log in with the correct account. --Pxos (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Identity thief issue

I am hoping someone can assist me and Jane Van Treeck of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. She contacted me yesterday because she was concerned about a Wikipedia user account User:jane Van Treeck that was created in her name. When I looked into the matter, edits had been made to Joe Luginbill, a person who lives in western Wisconsin who keeps harassing me via phone calls, e-mails and Facebook. There is only one Jane Van Treeck and it does not surprise me that this account has edits to a page of someone who has a history of harassing me. I am requesting the Jane Van Treeck user account is deleted as Jane considers it identity thief. Thank you. Asher Heimermann (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left a note for that user seeking comment [14]. Your friend could also email info-en@wikimedia.org with proof of identity requesting the account be blocked. The relevant policy consideration is found at Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names. –xenotalk 19:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Abrogation of RTV?

Resolved
 – Bureaucrat action unnecessary and inappropriate, per arbitrator User:Newyorkbrad below. Pakaran 02:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we please get some bureaucrat opinions in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Checkuser block of ColonelHenry and socks? An account that was vanished has been revealed to be the former account of ColonelHenry, now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, and was involved with the creation of hoax articles. A suggestion has been made that this abrogates the old account's RTV. Many thanks. — Scott • talk 18:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I found the RTV request in the bureaucrats mailing list and am looking into it. –xenotalk 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It would nullify his courtesy vanishing. Any crat is welcome to reverse the vanishing. I won't be able to get to it for about 8 hours. (Nihonjoe using his public machine account) Joeatworknotsecure (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree, though I'd say that we shouldn't undelete the user page/user talk page unless it's actually necessary to do so. While doing so wouldn't be de jure outing, since the information was posted to Wikipedia by the person themselves and courtesy vanishing "does not guarantee anonymity", we still probably shouldn't do so without a good reason. As an aside, though, I can't see where the prior account contributed to the hoax that Risker cites in the AN thread; what was its involvement exactly? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd be slightly disinclined to reverse the RTV if the old edits don't require further scrutiny; but if they do, then ensuring that our articles do not contain hoaxes (or other severe BLP issues) would be paramount to the editor's desire not to have the accounts connected. –xenotalk 19:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The account in question, which I've been examining, has definite connections to hoax activity. In my opinion as an admin it needs to be subject to broad scrutiny. I've held back from naming it pending your conclusions on the issue. — Scott • talk 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Naming it is fine, as is renaming the account back to its original name (IMO, at least). My only concern is with undeletion of the original user page, which contains explicit information about the user's identity. That is something we probably don't need to do to examine their edits and connections anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The only caveat I would bring up is that this is starting to look like an editor who used a large number of socks. Although I can understand not unnecessarily revealing personal information, is there anything on the user page which would point to other topics where he might have edited with other socks? BMK (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think he can claim any kind of privacy; he identifies himself by name on the AfD of one of the hoax articles. The article itself was about him. The AfD has been on public view for the last nine years, and is about to get a whole lot more attention; I'd say that his identity becoming public is a foregone conclusion. — Scott • talk 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you're right; like I said, I wouldn't consider undeleting the userpage to be outing anyway. I'm not saying we need to take extraordinary measures to protect his RL identity. I just didn't think restoring the userpage will particularly help the investigation, so, given the other stuff on there, we might as well leave it be. But as you will; that does seem to make it a moot point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The account's former and current name have been noted at the linked AN thread. Given the large number of edits I'd still be inclined to leave the rename in place (without prejudice to linking it to the other accounts given the RTV was made while the 'ColonelHenry' account had already been editing, and of course, continued editing); the edits can be scrutinized either way (and, in fact, the "Vanished nnn" username probably attract greater scrutiny on a casual view of a history page in their present form than they would would if we restored the original name). –xenotalk 20:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If it is the case that, as with normally deleted pages, any admin can see the deleted user page, then I think that's sufficient, as with the number of admins involved in this process right now, I feel assured that if there was anything relevant on the user page, it will be followed up, and could possibly also be shared with non-admins also working the case. Also, Xeno's point that "Vanished user..." edits stand out quite prominently on history pages is a good one. Since I was among the people asking for the account to be re-named, I'd say now that it is probably enough that the original name has been revealed publicly, although others may disagree. BMK (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
On a technical note, if it is decided to reverse the rename, it might be prudent to do so when the job queue isn't already over 200,000 jobs. This figure is around the long term average, but also at a time of the week when it tends to climb at least based upon global data (enwiki specific history data doesn't appear to be to be available) [15]. Now that the information is public, I'd tend to agree that if there was an urgent need, it's past. Pakaran 21:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess my continuing concern (even after seeing the site-wide graphs) is that it's not particularly difficult to trace the user's contributions at the moment. If a rename is in progress, much less ends abnormally, and the contributions are split between the new and old accounts, it would become much harder. In terms of what's typical for the enwiki job queue, I'd defer to those with more recent involvement in username changes. Pakaran 22:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Although this editor obviously violated policy in several distinct and serious ways, reversing the vanishing of the account name would not be desirable. This is partly so because of the server delay and partly for other reasons that I should not discuss on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't disagree with this more strongly. ExplorerCDT/ColonelHenry has been revealed as having a ten-year-long track record of abusing this project, leaving a trail of lies behind him. It's very important for maintaining our integrity that this is recognized. In the future, who knows how many people may encounter comments from the ExplorerCDT account on talk pages across the project? If this vanishing is allowed to stand, they will never easily be able to connect them to the actions of "Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32". In fact, it's even moot. I see as I write this that just minutes ago GiantSnowman set up a redirect from the former to the latter, something I was planning to do myself. Fine, let us try to avoid referring to this deceptive serial fantasist by his real name, to not worsen things for him outside the project, but the facts of the matter are that he has inextricably involved himself personally here by inserting references to himself by name into our articles. The cat is out of the bag, by his own hand. I ask a bureaucrat to support us defending ourselves from his abuse by restoring the connection between his contributions, user account, and talk page. If it needs to be delayed for some technical reasons, so be it. — Scott • talk 09:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I redirected the user page from one to the other as the user talk pages were already redirected - but yes, I agree with Scott. No further harm will be done to un-vanish the account, enough information is already out there for anybody with two brain cells to make the link themselves. Un-vanishing the account would be of great help as we try to get to the bottom of this. GiantSnowman 10:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, a couple comments. The user has forfeit his claim to vanishing, and I don't see anyone stating otherwise. I have seen the AFD for the article about this user, and yes, he's made the connection himself in the course of the severe burden he's imposed on the project. Normally, as an understatement, the rename would be reversed. Once it's reversed, however, it would impose further technical burden to reinstate (and in practice would never be reinstated, for very obvious reasons). If the button is going to be pushed, given that I see multiple functionaries mentioning severe off-wiki issues, I'd much rather a crat-functionary push it (and the server load issues might be additional reason to defer doing so). I'm not aware of these issues, from the 'crat list or any other source, and as a non-functionary should not be. However, from everything I'm seeing, we need to get this one right. This volunteer isn't going to push the button. Pakaran 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Pakaran; this is a point that I don't think anyone had really considered. Given that a process is now being established to review the contributions of this editor (in his various accounts), I can foresee a rename taking place in the middle of the data collection and editing review could create problems. The cleanup should take priority, as it's the edits that are affecting the project (a 'wrong' username is a nuisance, but bad edits are a problem). Perhaps deferring the rename until such time as the account's edits have been reviewed might be the best practice in this particular case. The more people who participate in the edit review and cleanup, the faster it will be completed, and the rename can proceed at that point if it is deemed necessary. To be honest, if we've got redirects all over the place pointing to the existing name, as appears to be the case, I'm not sure if a rename is actually required now; it seems absurd to do things that cause server crunches just for the sake of doing them, when the problem it is solving is already pretty much resolved. Risker (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well here's a complicated question

Resolved
 – Question answered

I may be getting ahead of myself here, but want to get my ducks lined up. I've initiated a petition for a "reconfirmation RfA" (usually called a "recall RfA") for an admin. There's a couple steps yet before an actual RfA occurs, and it's pretty unlikely that it'll get that far, but just in case, I'd like to get this worked out in advance.

As you know, a recall RfA is an RfA for someone who is already an admin; if the RfA passes nothing changes, if the RfA fails the editor's admin status is revoked. It's rare but not unheard of, I went through one myself.

But when I did, the question of "who will close the RfA" came up, was not satisfactorily answered, and I had to close it myself which I think we can agree is not ideal (it's here for reference). I don't recall the exact circumstances, but if I remember the bureaucrats declined to close, and I think it was because at the time bureaucrats lacked the rights to de-sysop someone. And you still do, except in narrow specified circumstances. Therefore the bureaucrats could not (and still cannot) effect the actual user-rights-changes part of a recall RfA, as they can for a normal RfA (where the ony possible outcomes are "nothing" or "add admin rights"). OK so far.

But what's really needed is an editor, a editor trusted to be competent and neutral, to, let's call it adjudicate the recall RfA -- that is, basically, count the votes. (There's more to it than that -- discounting illegitimate votes and so on, and of course deciding on Pass/Fail if the vote is close).

Obviously a bureaucrat is far and away the best editor do that, and very much better than "the RfA subject" or "the RfA initiator" or "a random editor asked by the subject or the initiator who is quite possibly not random at all but rather a friend" or "the first random (or not so random) editor who decides to do it immediately the required 7 days have passed" which are the other possibilities. Right?

If it helps, by all means the adjudicating editor could state she's acting just an an editor who just happens have the requisite trust and experience. This is sort of semantic quibbling, but if it helps.

The actual rights-removal (if it came to that) could be effected by someone -- anyone -- appealing to the affected admin for a self-request on the grounds of good sportsmanship and enlightened self-interest, and if that fails appealing to ArbCom on the grounds of common sense and the good of the Wikipedia. (If that fails then SOL I guess.) I'll take care of that, or anyone can.

But don't worry about that part, none of that has anything to with the person adjudicating the result; once they've typed "Succeeded" or "Did not succeed" their role is over.

Does this make sense? Anyway, my question is:

  • Would the bureaucrats as a group be willing to moot among yourselves and agree that is something you can see your way clear to do?
  • And if not, would some bureaucrat agree to do us this service? All I need here is one name. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    As I see it, a recall is completely voluntary and as such can be stepped out of at any point. We've seen this happen in the past. I don't believe the crat's should be removing the sysop flag based on an unsuccessful reconfirmation RFA - but rather due to the voluntary self-request which should follow the closure. On that understanding, I'd be happy to close a reconfirmation RfA with comments in either direction and a recommendation - but I would not be willing to remove the bit forcefully. WormTT(talk) 08:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    Having looked further - the administrator in question has not agreed to recall. Unless he is willing to, a case needs to be taken to Arbcom. WormTT(talk) 08:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Worm, myself and others (Coren, Jc37, etc) have explored the idea of forced recalls, empowering crats more, and other ways to make admin bit removable by the community, several different times with actually policy proposals. The community hasn't supoorted any of these ideas in the past, and it appears, wants Arb to be the only way to pry the bit from an admin by force. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose I can't speak for any other 'crats, but I believe I've already made my views clear: there is no such thing as an involuntary reconfirmation RfA, we are not going to just make up a community desysop procedure as we go, and the only way to remove the admin bits involuntarily is through Arbcom. If you actually think that this situation requires a desysop, start an Arb case request (or an RFC/U as a first step to an Arb case), with all the necessary evidence. If you don't think that, then stop stirring the pot, because this is not going to produce any results other than generating even more pointless drama. There has been plenty of that already. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been a supporter of community recall for years, but it'a a battle that was lost, or at least not yet won. Wishing won't change that.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question is irrelevant because your petition will not succeed, either way I would not close an "involuntary re confirmation RFA" unless wide community consensus existed for the process. –xenotalk 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    It seems to be the current options are:
    1. For the admin in question to be persuaded to resign and run a fresh RfA.
    2. For an Arbcom case to be started requesting a desysop on the basis of misconduct/lack of community confidence - perhaps following a user conduct RfC demonstrating the same.
    As with others above, I would be very cautious to set a precedent for a recall RfA. For starters, what would be needed for a desysop result - less than the level of support needed to pass an RfA, less than 50%+1 in support, a positive consensus to desysop? If there is to be a community process for removing adminship, it needs a firm consensus and for the "rules" to be determined in advance. WJBscribe (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are indeed getting ahead of yourself. The ducks don't line up very well, but I am an odd duck. However, you have not actually done the legwork here, which is at minimum a user conduct RFC. Andrevan@ 03:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Evaluating Consensus

I would like to know on what points and factors do the Bureaucrats evaluate consensus of any given RFA/RFB. Is it mainly on the comments, reasons and the evidence given or do they also cross check every !vote that is made on it's own merit ? The page states that They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner, so how exactly is consensus judged and is there any standard or common practice for all bureaucrats by which consensus is judged or is every bureaucrat free to judge consensus in their own way ? TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to learn how 'crats judge consensus is to read some of the previous "crat chats", which are listed here: Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion#Previous bureaucrat discussions. Some of the numerically close RfAs also include lengthy explanations by the closing bureaucrat. 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 28bytes, that will certainly help. Though I was more curious to know how an RFA or RFB is analyzed and evaluated when it is closed by a single bureaucrat especially in borderline cases which is commonly known as a tough call. Learning all this will help me understand the process more clearly. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Clean up on aisle 5

Resolved

Unless I miss my guess, this was never properly transcluded, and considering that the nominee turned it down (because of the inexperience and character of the nominator) can it just be disappeared, so as not to prejudice the nominee should he decide to run in the future? BMK (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Although, the rather mature, thoughtful decline says more about the character of the "nom" than anything else the panda ₯’ 09:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dennis, and yes, Panda, I agree. BMK (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Flag a bot

DefconBot was approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DefconBot. Could some add the bot flag to it? Armbrust The Homunculus 18:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#June_2014

Resolved
 – Permissions removed. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following editors can be desysopped as of 11 June, 2014 for inactivity.

Thanks to all of them for their volunteer services. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_29&oldid=1223776578"