This should have been closed six hours ago. Would someone please close it? Thanks. :) — neuro^(talk) 09:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the note, although, a delay of a few hours should not be a big problem when closing an RfA. Warofdreams talk 11:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like SQLBot has gone AWOL. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there's a discussion at WT:RFA about it. ST47 has put together a new table which is automatically updated (I'll put it on the BN header to keep things consistent). I've contacted SQL via email about the bot, but no reply as yet. Richard⁰⁶¹² 12:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to do some cleanup work related to {{wikibookspar}}, my bot complained over not having a bot flag. It seems that the standard practice of granting flags to all approved bots came after its approval. Could a kind bureaucrat grant my little friend one? --Swift (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  Many thanks for your swift action! --Swift (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the bot flag from all my bots?

• Chris G Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
• Chris G Bot 2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
• Chris G Bot 3 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
• FA Template Protection Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
• AntiAbuseBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Thanks --Chris 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also someone will need to take over the chu archive bot (X! seems the likely choice since he runs the other bot) The source code is here if anyone is interested --Chris 09:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to go to m:RFP to request that a steward removes you bits. Unfortunatley, the 'crats can only give permissions, not remove it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

'wgRemoveGroups' => array(
    'enwiki' => array(
        'bureaucrat' => array( 'bot', 'ipblock-exempt', 'accountcreator' ),
        'sysop' => array( 'rollbacker', 'ipblock-exempt', 'accountcreator' ),
    )
)

--MZMcBride (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In plain English, bureaucrats cannot remove sysop rights, but they can flag and deflag bots. As an aside, it would be a good idea if a willing admin took on the FA template protection bot and AntiAbuseBot too, as these are very useful tasks. Richard⁰⁶¹² 10:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Andre (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break- Crats removing the bit

As an aside, is the power to remove the sysop flag something we might want to look at for en.wp? I've always wondered why it was that English Wikipedia bureaucrats were not given this function. Meta has adopted the idea, for one. I honestly can't think of a situation where abuse of the desysop function would go unnoticed or unaddressed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly support such a proposal, should it be put forward. It would allow compromised sysop accounts to be deflagged quicker, limiting damage; in the extremely unlikely instance that a 'crat went on a rampage, desysopping can always be undone (as with almost everything else). Richard⁰⁶¹² 11:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think because it hasn't been necessary. The arbitrators can, by asking a steward, perform the same function; there are enough stewards able to perform the desysop that I don't remember a significant delay or resultant damage in past incidents. Crats on en.wp have been selected for a discrete set of tasks; while there are regular proposals to bring them into other processes, don't forget that other tasks require different qualifications than participants in the RfB had in mind. Avruch ^T 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I think RfB is a baptism in fire; those who have passed it can be pretty much trusted to do anything, so gruelling is the process and so trusted the users must be. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it is a baptism by fire, AD, but sysop-bit removal is a significant change to the mandate. Just as Meta is not EnWiki, EnWiki is not MEta :) -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just find it hard to believe we couldn't trust our 'crats with this tool, and I think any concern that it could be abused (which is, after all, what we should be considering) is not material. I know what you're saying about our 'crats not being elected to do this, that, and the other, but such arguments are just counter-productive, in some sense and in my personal opinion. After all, how many new admin functions have been imported since the promotion of the earliest admins? Many, yet we've not resisted their introduction because the people who supported those admins weren't aware at the time that who they were voting for would later have access to them. Just my personal take. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The bar for sysophood is much lower; however. Further, in EnWiki culture, removing the sysop bit is a serious, ArbCom requiring issue. The culture is different here than in other wikis, for better or for worse. And I know you think that I need more non-enwiki exposure, but I do have enough to know that in this case, it would be a big deal, unlike on Meta, where the culture is free-er. Also, don't forget, that until recently the bar for sysophood in Meta was much, much lower than it was anywhere else, as was the bar for 'crathood. As logical as your suggestion may be, I think it is not a great idea for EnWiki, at least without project-wide discussion, CSS-notices, and serious talk. -- Avi (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course such discussion would be required. I wasn't suggesting it be done here and now. And I agree that it would be a big deal. Just remember, I was only putting the idea out there, because I think there is substantial argument for, but also against the distribution of this function to our 'crats. hence discussion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support the crats being able to remove the bit... of course, I am in favor of making it easier to grant AND remove the bit, and in order to make it easier to remove the bit, more people need the power to do so.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that we're now moving into the realm of sysop bots, and the fact that the separation of powers isn't needed for any reason than (potentially unwarranted) paranoia, I'm all for bureaucrats being given the right to remove the bit. It also goes hand-in-hand with my ideas for an RfDA process, but that's just a secondary reason for my support of the concept. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As well as losing Chris G's archiving Bot, it seems that SoxBotVI hasn't been clerking for a while... --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: But you still have me, and I'm not going anywhere. But I do sleep. Sorry. Useight (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Appalling behaviour. How much are we paying you? Oh, wait... erm, oh. --Dweller (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pay? I wants mah moneys! bibliomaniac15 05:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sleep? Unacceptable. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: You can sleep when you're dead. Back to work! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done per EVula. Useight (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User was promoted. No rename needed. --Deskana (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the "@" in S@bre's username could cause problems with the ability of the software to sysop or desysop his account, he has agreed to change his username to Sabre. If his RfA succeeds tomorrow (which at this point seems quite likely), be sure to complete his Usurpation Request prior to granting his rights. I'd do the usurpation now, but it seems less complicated to do it after the RfA is closed and not during the RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall I go ahead and let people know in the discussion section and move the RFA page to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sabre now, for the people (like me) who create links to the page? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a redirect to the S@bre page would be more appropriate. –xeno (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Historically, either convention (moving the page or creating a redirect) has been used at random. Just remember to categorize the resulting redirect in Category:Redirects to requests for adminship MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, I've never seen that cat before. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can leave things are they are until the RfA closes, at which point we can do the usurpation and then grant the rights. Kingturtle (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of the kinds of characters/issues that can cause this kind of problem? --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think @ is the only problematic character, because of the way stewards flag accounts (e.g. User:Dweller@enwiki would be you, at this Wikipedia). If there is an @ character, it would look like this: User:S@bre@enwiki. Is that S on bre@enwiki or S@bre on enwiki? That's the problem. Majorly talk 16:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Majorly. That makes sense. I wonder if it's worth dropping a word of advice about it into WP:U. I'm not sure I'd go as far as objecting to usernames created with the symbol, but users should have a chance to discover that if they request it and they then decide to go for RfA, it'll mean a name change. If we do ever get the Bots back up at CHU (see above) we could instruct them to ask a question about this, too... --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not actually possible to create usernames with the @ sign in it anymore - it was fixed in a bug request. There is, however, the problem of usernames with the sign in it already, but it would probably be easier to deal with these as they come. Majorly talk 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a non-issue... 99% of the time. This is just the 1%. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Why is there a need for renaming? I thought # + User ID works? ... — Aitias // discussion 17:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just more convenient than having to look up the user ID in case of emergency. Majorly talk 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds indeed very reasonable. — Aitias // discussion 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a hidden comment at the top of the RfA to alert any closing 'crat to check here first. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you already know the candidate will be promoted? — Aitias // discussion 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

S@abre's PayPal payment cleared. Whoever closes the RfA will get to spend the weekend in Vegas. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I knew there was a reason i subjected myself to that RfB a few months ago!---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 22:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Humm, ok if the user wants to be renamed. But I should note: it takes about 15 seconds to find out just about anyone's ID. There's a tool for that. I ran a test to find S@bre's ID, found it, then tested it on the Steward interface -- it's more practical, because you don't change rights with the first click on the button. The first click only locates the account. I entered the ID and found it just fine. If people wanted to be 200% certain about it, without having to subject the user to a rename, I could always change his rights from the Steward interface, in which case I would make a very visible note of it on the RfA, with a link to the Meta log.
And once he has been promoted, only a Steward could remove the flag should it ever be the case, in which case it would have to be done in the Steward interface anyway. It would take the Steward less than a minute to take care of it, even having to use the ID.
I would like the candidate to be aware of this, especially since we are talking about renaming an account with almost 13 thousand edits. And I see no practical reason to rename the user specifically because he has an "@" on his username. That's what IDs are for, and that's why we have access to those. It's not privileged information. Redux (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just left S@bre a message asking them to weigh in on whether they want the rename or not, given the fact that the @ is apparently not that big of an issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather indifferent as to whether I have it changed or not. If it makes things that little bit easier for the crats to deal with, I don't see any reason not to. I'm just not sure how this will affect my global account; I presume this will only change my login for Wikipedia, not every Wikimedia project? -- Sabre (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't actually affect the bureaucrats at all; at most, it affects the stewards, since they'll have to go thru the arduous 15 second process of gathering your ID before doing anything on your account. A rename would indeed wreck your global account (requiring a name change everywhere), so it's probably just best to not do anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, is it resolved then that we will not make this usurpation? Kingturtle (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if its really not a big deal and can be dealt with in 15 seconds by stewards, but will consequently destroy my global login, I think I'll give it a pass. I'm seeing (marginally) active "Sabre" accounts on the French, Portugese and Italian Wikis, so I can't have it universally as "Sabre" (The wikiquote account is mine, prior to me creating the unified account). I'll withdraw the usurption request. -- Sabre (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is FOLLY. That extra 15 seconds it takes the steward could be the time Sabre needs to delete every page on the wiki! –xeno (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so it doesn't go unsaid, User:@pple is also an admin. Xclamation point 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

After X!'s last comment I can comfortably say that the last angle has been covered and that a rename is not needed. Chillum 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a new straw poll for granting crats the technical ability to desysop. Synergy 07:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've expounded upon what i perceive to be rationales for this proposal. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As long as the distinction over the last proposal is clear (no random RfC's or recalls on talk pages). Thanks for the help. Synergy 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad there has been a posting here. These proposals pretty much always come to the correct conclusion when a large enough group of people are made aware of it. Chillum 02:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now there's faith in democracy. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not democracy, it is just that consensus needs to go beyond those who form the idea. Chillum 13:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's always {{cent}}... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I found them to be overly long, complicated, out of date in places and liberally littered with use of red/bold/underlining and other visual distractions, to the point that it was very offputting to read.

I'm having a go at a gentle tidy-up. I encourage the Crats and regular clerks to please keep an eye on my changes in case I foul up, and join in if you see things that can be amended to make the instructions friendlier. Don't forget: most users will visit this page a maximum of once. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Andre (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The instructions were c.10,800 bytes before I started. I hope to make them somewhat more monochrome, more logically laid-out... and much shorter. --Dweller (talk)

Can someone clever create a little box to hang below the shortcuts box on the page, containing the text: For help "vanishing" from Wikipedia, please read "Right to vanish". --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm unsure about continuing to include this subsection. It takes up an awful lot of space and is pithily covered right at the very top now, where it reads:

• This page is for requests on the English Wikipedia only. To change your username on another Wikimedia project, please ask a bureaucrat on that project or make a request on Meta.

Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the 'little box', is this what you had in mind? Feel free to modify, move to project space, etc. as appropriate. As for the line about other Wikipedias, the replacement looks good as it says essentially the same thing in fewer words. Richard⁰⁶¹² 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Box looks great, thanks. I'll add it. I'll wait for comments/consensus on the other Wikipedias issue. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done this a few times in the past, but instruction-pruning is a recurring necessity. Thanks for working on this, Dweller. — Dan | talk 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's done, including a severe prune of the instructions for other Wikipedias, as mentioned above. It's down to just over 9,000 bytes, but I think it's clearer, more logically laid-out and less gruesome on the eye. If I've botched anything, please do revert me. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick notice to inform you that I have posted a proposal at the Proposals Village Pump regarding giving BAG the bot-flagging right. I thought I'd post this here as it would be useful to get some 'crat opinions on the matter. Comments, questions, trouts, etc welcome at the proposal section! Richard⁰⁶¹² 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is a question that I've often had for 'crats. Let's say, I write an oppose, and give solid reasons behind my oppose. After I !vote, a dozen people come along and oppose "per Sparatacus!" or cite me in some way shape or form. After they've !voted per my reasoning, I shift my stance and end up supporting or withdraw my oppose. How do you, as crats, typically weight that? When I shift my stance, I indicate that I'm doing so because I was pursuaded that my position was wrong, or the candidate convinces me that s/he has the credentials I thought were missing, or what have you. How does this affect the strength of argument of those people who cited me as the basis for their oppose?---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't affect the strength of argument. The editors who voted "per xx" obviously found the reasoning valid. You have changed position. That does not mean they have. In such a hypothetical situation you could advise said "voters" that you have changed position but if your point was that well made that a dozen others agreed maybe you would want to consider why you had now changed your position. Their comments are as valid as if they had stated the reason directly themselves. No difference to a "per" vote at WP:AFD. Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Per Pedro. --Dweller (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Per Pedro. --~~botched signature by user:Rlevse
• Oppose. Uh, wait... what? --Deskana (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, this isn't a hypothetical question. It's exactly what happened at the current Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2. Iridescent based his oppose on a misunderstanding of WSC's answer. After the misunderstanding was cleared, Iridescent removed his oppose but there are still three or four opposes basically "per Iridescent". The question isn't: what should the 'crats do? The question is: why are RfA participants too irresponsible to actually revisit an RfA that they opposed or supported 5 days earlier? The reasonable thing to do would be to contact these editors and point out to them that the situation has changed. Unfortunately, the last time I tried to do this it wreaked havoc. Maybe it would make sense for b'crats to contact editors who gave their !vote in the first days of an RfA, especially when the RfA is close or has been somewhat controversial. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The misunderstanding was really about the wording of one of the candidate's answers, but that doesn't invalidate the basic reason - lack of content creation. I am one of the "irresponsible" participants and noted the clarification, but I still feel my oppose was valid. The community felt otherwise, so good luck to the new admin. But Pedro's answer certianly applies here. Dean B (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Active RfAs can change based on new evidence. It isn't just "as per" !votes that are a concern here. All !votes are moments in time - and things can and do change. It is very challenging to interpret consensus on an RfA that, due to new evidence, changed course mid-way or late in the game. It is best practice for all participants to occasionally review active RfAs - just to be sure new, mind-changing information hasn't been presented. It isn't a nuisance at all and indeed is quite helpful if you go back later to your !vote and say "in light of the new evidence, I remain firm on my support" (or opposition). Kingturtle (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should be common practice to watchlist RfAs and check them periodically for new information. I've seen quite a few seemingly straightforward ones change course drastically halfway through. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA participants should be more responsible. After supporting or opposing an RFA, they should at least check the RFA once after few days. AdjustShift (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You think they'd do that? After all, responding to a vote (!vote, whatever) in any way, shape or form is BADGERING, and if there's one thing opposers hate more, it's someone daring to reply to them and suggest their vote might not actually be accurate or fair. Majorly talk 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... it depends upon individuals. In my case, if someone can demonstrate with some evidence that my vote might not actually be accurate or fair, I may change my vote. I'm flexible; I will not say "How dare you challenge me?" :-) AdjustShift (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, please try to not get worked up over this. It's just a hypothetical situation, not an opportunity to rail against something you dislike. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm being silly. Ignore me :) Majorly talk 21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Each crat who sees this, please immediately sign below in order to gauge the average response time of the crats to urgent requests for help. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

:D Acalamari 22:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. Useight (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

haha, nice –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We are now 17 minutes into the test, no crats sighted yet. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a muster station? Perhaps they went there? Pedro :  Chat  22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

<cues 24 clock sound effects> rootology (C)(T) 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If this were a real fire, we would all be blackened corpses by now. Mr.Z-man 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the 'crat handbook says anything about dragging your body out of a fire. Now, if you'd like your charred corpse to be renamed, I can help... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we have "urgent crat actions"? Majorly talk 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I get it. As far as I know, the bureaucrat position is not currently one that deals with urgent requests, so we have no reason to keep our eyes glued to the BN all day long. If ever we were assigned an urgent job -- say, emergency desysopping -- then we'd set about changing our habits. But this test is entirely misconceived, since, given that we presently have no urgent jobs, the fact that we're slow to respond now does not imply anything about the speed with which we would respond if we were assigned an urgent job. — Dan | talk 23:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Andre (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would you need a 'crat within 20 or 30 minutes? The only thing I can think of is an emergency right to vanish. Most of us are reachable via email, IRC or other means most hours of the day. Are there incidents we should know about in which emergency matters went unaddressed (is that a word?) Kingturtle (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Proposal_2#Efficiency_test. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell what you were hoping to gain. Not only are the expectations of the roles different since bureaucrats have no emergency roles currently, but you asked one group on IRC and one group on a noticeboard. As Dan mentioned above the response now has little or nothing to do with what the response would be if we did have an emergency role. Bureaucrat tasks are pretty thin on the ground right now. - Taxman ^Talk 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats and stewards are really not the same. It's also exceedingly rare for a steward to be required in an emergency, where it involves desysopping someone for abusing tools. As I said above, I'm really not sure what purpose this test served, but it wasn't really carried out very fairly, as pointed out by Taxman. Again, there is no such thing as an emergency crat action. If for some reason we decided to give them one, no doubt we'd promote more. Majorly talk 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the Bureaucrat position is not at all related to quick response to emergencies, specifically because the position does not exist to deal with emergencies. That is not to say that Bureaucrats are not, or should not be, efficient. On the contrary, being efficient is absolutely essential to the job. But it does not mean "must be able to respond in less than 'x' minutes when prompted". Obviously, that is also not to say that we can take days, or as long as we please to answer questions or tend to tasks. It's just a matter of balance and common sense. Redux (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If I had to wager, I'd say that this is related to the proposal for bureaucrats being able to remove sysop flags in the event of an emergency; given that, yes, the bureaucrats would have a role that is somewhat time-definitive. However, I would expect IRC or email to be a far more efficient method of getting bureaucrat attention in such a situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seen heading. Not read anything else. I rarely visit at weekends. --Dweller (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to have a silly exercise. It's quite another to misspell the name of the activity. It's "fire drill," not "firedrill." Header changed accordingly. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Crats response time

1. This is hardly a good test for the average response time; the only reason I haven't been able to respond before now was because of taking a late-afternoon shower to prepare for an evening of Not Wikipedia. This is not a regular enough occurrence for me on Fridays (usually it's done in the morning). *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   To get a better average response time, I agree, this test would have to be performed several times on various days of the week and at various times. It's merely a question of sample size. Useight (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

   Or, we could promote 10 more 'crats from WP:HAU. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Just because someone is an active editor doesn't mean they'd make a good bureaucrat, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   FTR, you can get a steward in ~30 seconds. :) There really is no time benefit to be gained. Prodego ^talk 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, not sure where the best place to ask about this is, but I have received a complaint that my recently approved bot was flooding the recent changed page. Could it be provided with a bot flag, please? Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All set now - Taxman ^Talk 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed a new method for handling inactive bureaucrats at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_removal. MBisanz ^talk 10:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone please resysop myself and AntiAbuseBot, this is just embarrassing --Chris 12:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Welcome back and please don't go again!- Taxman ^Talk 12:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah! :) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree :P Please dont go again :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. For future reference, the move log at the time the first message in this thread was posted was something like this. Graham87 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing poll on Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_removal#The_obligatory_evil_thing.. — Aitias // discussion 20:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's approximately the time for a bureaucrat to make a call with regards to my nomination to join the BAG. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Man, gauging consensus is hard sometimes... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Crats close BAG noms? Man, you learn something new every day. bibliomaniac15 21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Er... Lemme look up the link to your RfB... Avruch ^T 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Typing User:sowhy in the search box takes me to User:SoWhy, because there's no page User:Sowhy. Typing User_talk:sowhy takes me to User_talk:Sowhy, a user with a total of 3 edits in 2006 who was warned for vandalism. There's a high probability that people typing user_talk:sowhy want SoWhy. At what point does it become permissible to either usurp the old name for a redirect, or maybe the less drastic step of just deleting the current page User_talk:Sowhy, and perhaps archiving its contents on the off chance someone cares in the future? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the bureaucrats, but I believe there is no cut and dry standard, but rather a case-by-case basis. And I'd imagine that this would be an usurpable case. Useight (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it is case by case. I think as long as the edits are insignificant, it may be usurped by SoWhy and used as a doppelganger account. bibliomaniac15 19:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, bibliomaniac. I've requested usurpation, might be a good idea to do :-) SoWhy 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We definitely want to solve any situation in which two usernames are identical. Kingturtle (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this broken again, or is it just me that's having a problem using it? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver has had new servers installed and the webserver and databases were moved iirc, that might be causing it --Chris 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I found the problem, one of the db servers is down (s3), so its unable to connect to it and it is failing semi gracefully. --Chris 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone would like to reinstate the big ugly message box on the name change pages, telling everyone changes are on hold, that'd be great. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that SUL has been around long enough for everyone who wants to unify their account to do so, new accounts are automatically unified, and renameuser gives you an error message if someone already has the unified account (even if the toolserver is down), is this tool still essential for renames, assuming the person requesting the rename understands that they might not be able to get the unified account under their new name? Angela. 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats typically will not fulfill rename requests that would allow the en.wiki user to maneuver into a controlling position of an unclaimed SUL if the name is actively used on another wiki. –xeno (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessarily true that everyone who wishes to unify his or her account has already done so, and these "grandfathered" situations may create complications in the future, we have no way to know if they exist without the SUL tool. However, for most renames, renameuser's error message should work. If it's a big load on the database kill it, but I doubt it's a significant cause of lag. Andre (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so, I don't feel especially comfortable without checking. I've refrained from renaming until s3 gets fixed. bibliomaniac15 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether a bug report has been filed, or where the centralised discussion of this problem is? --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug report won't help. I'm sure VVV knows about it, and will fix it as soon as he can. But for now, while s3 is down, there's nothing that can be done. Xclamation point 21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

S3 is back up and so is the tool --Chris 07:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks chaps. I've amended the message box about the SUL tool and then hidden it for future contingencies. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac renamed me (Msgj to MSGJ) and I'm wondering if there is a problem. I can still log in as Msgj but trying to log in as MSGJ gives a database error:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

    (SQL query hidden)

from within function "User::saveSettings". MySQL returned error "1062: Duplicate entry 'Msgj' for key 2 (10.0.0.235)".

My watchlist on Msgj has gone. I can't survive without that. Thanks, Msgj (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgh... it's that same problem Xeno had a few weeks ago. The rename query suddenly stops, and the rename is incomplete. I'll go poke a dev. Xclamation point 07:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a new one for me. Xeno said xe got it to work by logging in from another wiki (bugzilla:17082). Maybe try that. wodup 07:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks X. Oh and I think I've been desysopped. I wasn't aware of an ArbCom ruling against me ;) Msgj (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a peek, the Msgj account seems to have been re-created because of your global account. I've been poking at the MSGJ account in the shell, and while I could reproduce that error message ONCE, I didn't manage to dig in far enough to figure out why. Can you try logging in now and tell me how it goes? If it doesn't work, I'll have to look a little deeper. — Werdna • talk 08:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's working now. Thanks! Martin^msgj 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We've got a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Approved. There are several approved bots that need flagging. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Brrryce (talk · contribs) has instigated an administrator recall request against MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), alleging that his deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) constituted an abuse of his admin tools. I have been asked to clerk this process, and am posting this notice here pursuant to MBisanz's recall policy. This policy stipulates that if five administrators meeting specified criteria endorse the recall request within 48 hours, MBisanz will either resign adminship or initiate a reconfirmation RFA. As I am posting this notice at a number of locations, I would suggest that all discussion be centralized at User talk:MBisanz/Recall. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to a recent influx in people asking "Are you sure you want your real name?", I had added an 11th option to {{CHU}}. Feel free to use it (using {{CHU|irl}}. Xclamation point 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish to do this. Can someone either downgrade me or point me in the direction where it is done? Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

m:SRP is where it is done, although you may wish to reconsider under removal criteria. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This can be requested here. — Aitias // discussion 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't believe this incident warrants it. You've made an error, and noticed the error. Superhuman perfection is not expected of any of us, and I would not expect anyone believes it necessary for you to step down. I wish you would reconsider. — Coren ^(talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If ddstretch does resign his bit, I believe he is entitled to reclaim it at any time by asking a crat. One unblock of this sort, regardless of its validity, would never lead to desysoping by arbcom, so this resignation would be entirely voluntary if it were to go forward. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, please stay. Learning from the episode and moving forward is best. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)While I feel this is a personal choice on the part of DDStretch, and I am not going to pressure him either way I do agree that should he ever want the bit back he should have it granted to him without the need for a RfA / arbcom deal. Tiptoety ^talk 02:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagreed with the unblock, but you have come to the conclusion that it was in error and you apologized. I cannot ask any better of an administrator, and you should not be resigning over something this minor. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need to step down. Whats done is done. It was only a mistake. Synergy 02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

D, we all learn from these events. You were not acting maliciously or destructively. I don't find it necessary for you to resign. Kingturtle (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. We all make mistakes. I strongly suggest you reconsider your decision. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As the person who sort-of started all of this, I really hope Ddstretch does not resign. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jasonr_(reconfirmation) this should be deleted as precipitous and ill-advised, in my opinion. Avruch ^T 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completely. Let it go, for goodness sake. Majorly talk 15:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just a shot in the dark - basically no prior discussion, no real clarity on the background for this person, no discussion with the "candidate" or Jimbo... No reason to think that any bureaucrat worth his bit would close this "request", and no process in place to complete a desysop even if they did. A de-adminship process should not be created ad hoc with no forethought, no matter how much you and others think its a great idea. Avruch ^T 16:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know your opinion, but I disagree completely, as do many people. Majorly talk 16:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have placed procedural questions here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jasonr (reconfirmation). Kingturtle (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has closed it, or at least does not condone it. Tiptoety ^talk 23:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A decision to be commended. This time he's done it the right way. bibliomaniac15 00:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see a rationale, even if brief, from the closing 'crat, if possible. Cheers. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That was well within discretion range. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My extraordinary pedantry is at it again, and I've posted at Template talk:Bureaucrat-note about the pictogram used in  Bureaucrat note:. If anyone can be bothered to have an opinion about such a frippery, I'd welcome their input, so I feel less freakily geeky and obsessive. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Pictogram_voting_info.svg has been changed to File:Pictogram_voting_comment.svg, per discussion at the template's talk page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Could a bureaucrat please urgently move WP:ANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to a different user name and then block that? This vandal is engaging in large-scale move vandalism, and may be a Grawp sock. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Urgent glitch for background. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done by Angela (talk · contribs). —kurykh 06:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And who said that fire drill we had a while back wasn't necessary? :) --Chris 07:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew my inane ideas had a purpose! MBisanz ^talk 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. I think I, and others who suggested it was waste of time, were wrong to dismiss the idea. Majorly talk 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note also that while Stewards are generally urged not to perform actions such as renames that can be performed by a local Bureaucrat, this type of situation would be a justifiable exception if no En-wiki bureaucrats could quickly be found. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Er...Angela is a local crat. bibliomaniac15 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

She was also one of the first stewards, but she used her local crat powers last night. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Brad, I don't know if anyone tried to grab a steward, but I suspect most stewards are aware of en-wiki's extreme aversion to outside interference and to our global rights' policy specifically forbidding them from using their powers here. I know that before the Arbcom appointed more checkusers and there were long periods of time when none were available, the stewards never found a grawp attack to be emergency enough to use checkuser on enwiki even though they do that on 740 other wikis. In light of this though, it may be useful starting a discussion on modifying the global rights' policy to permit them to do crat tasks in emergency situations. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is a different situation because there are privacy issues involved, plus if Grawp is here, one needs to block the account, but I'm not sure it's an emergency as opposed to waiting a few minutes for a CU to come online. In this instance, the rename was an immediate need in response to a blatant emergency. In addition, typically there is no such thing as a need for an "emergency bureaucrat action" (no irreparable harm was ever done by a rename request or an RfA not being resolved for an extra hour or two), so 'crats aren't usually thinking in terms of being alert for urgent situations. If the stewards won't help out even in this situation then maybe we need to make a couple of the checkusers or oversighters emergency back-up 'crats solely for this type of situation, or something like that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This sort of emergency situation is exactly what stewards are for. In this instance, it was lucky that someone thought to ping me on Skype about it, but if I hadn't been there, you could have found a steward on IRC much quicker than you would find someone using this noticeboard. Although I was the one who dealt with this, I only just now saw this post here, 17 hours later! Angela. 23:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The solution here is for enwiki to stop being so anal about stewards helping out here in emergencies. It's not a big deal if it's helping us out in an emergency - it's doing us a favour. Instead of shunning them away and treating them like crap, they should be made to feel welcome here, so they will help us out if help is needed. This is exactly why enwiki has such a terrible reputation in the Wikimedia world. Majorly talk 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree 100%. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Same. Xclamation point 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the GRU to reflect these new sentiments. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A nice tweak. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was puzzled by some feedback from one of the users at CHU and tried to initiate a username change myself.

I therefore spotted this page which comes up in the preview panel if you follow the instructions.

There are multiple problems with that page and I've not a clue how to edit or remove it. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Click here (and scroll up) to see how it looks in preview. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be edited is File:WP CHU checklist.svg. I made an inquiry last month at File talk:WP CHU checklist.svg. The File was created by User:Nichalp, who is inactive, so we might just need to make a new File to replace it. Kingturtle (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be a bug in MediaWiki's libsvg module. Editing the SVG won't fix this. It may just be better to make a png of the correct file, and upload that for the time being. Xclamation point 16:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's been suggested at the File talk. --Dweller (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Directed to WP:CHU.

Hi. Please, change my nickname to "Tima-s". Thanks. Timur R. Salikhov (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you follow the process at this page please, it's a little too complicated for here. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 15:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You can visit WP:CHU to request a rename, however, you could also simply register the new account and abandon this one. –xeno (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I would like my +sysop flag restored. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Left in good standing, no heinous revelations since then, looks fine to re-flag to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with MBisanz, Chillum 04:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. bibliomaniac15 04:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments here may be of interest to my esteemed bureaucratic colleagues. — Dan | talk 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

(Inspired by Angela's post above, about seeing the BN post 17 hours after she'd done the action needed) I'd be happy to append my email address to such a thing, to be placed on this page. It'd get my attention a lot faster than a BN post. What do other Crats think? We're not often needed in a hurry, but it'd be nice to have a mechanism. I already (at WP:BUREAUCRAT) invite users to email me for privacy-related renaming. --Dweller (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You could have a mailing list perhaps? Just so it's one address that will contact you all. No need for discussion on it or anything, or archives. Majorly talk 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe we could have a watchlist-email system so that any edits to this page would be emailed to all Bureaucrats. Kingturtle (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps a new messages-type thing, where edits to this page trigger some sort of on-wiki notice. Not sure if this would be possible technically, just a though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would gladly put my email in a mailing list or an email alert or something. bibliomaniac15 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A mailing list sounds a good option. The most important thing is just making sure people know about it. The problem isn't that bureaucrats are uncontactable - it's just that people don't know how to contact them. In the 40 minutes this was going on, no one even tried special:emailuser. Angela. 06:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All of our email links are available at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. How can we make it more noticeable? Kingturtle (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably having one "e-mail all bureaucrats" link would be more likely to be used in such an emergency than hitting individual crats. Creating User:Bureaucrat (registered, no edits) or User:Bureaucrats (unregistered) in the same manner as User:Oversight (as essentially a pure e-mail postbox) with the e-mail set to this 'crat mailing list, would be the most private and yet simplest method. Happy‑melon 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be good if one of us got a mailing list going first. We can then think about how to promote it. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking this just involves bugging a dev. I'm willing to bug the dev, but I need a crat and a crat's email to give them to step the list up under as list owner. Any moderately active crat who is willing to do the paperwork wanna email it to me? MBisanz ^talk 11:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to get this going. I'll email you my details. Perhaps the dev can set it up so Crats can opt in. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, bugzilla:18006, now to start bribing some devs. Any list would be opt in, so each crat would need to register with it (and be approved by Dweller) to get on the list. MBisanz ^talk 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The list is at wikien-bureaucrats. Angela.

Added to the top of the page, as well as WP:RTV. I basically copied it from the WP:Requests for oversight page. It seems a bit redundant, so feel free to change it around. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like my sysop flag restored. Not at full activity still, but I see the occasional task that I could do whilst online. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Recent resignation, nothing I can see from his talk page to signal he shouldn't get the flag back, good to go. MBisanz ^talk 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any reason why not, but I'm puzzled that the user rights log looks empty ([1]) What's conflabberating me? --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• It took me a while to find, but this looks like him. Seems the name got changed in the log for whatever reason? Majorly talk 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is me too. The story is, my original account was renamed and I recreated the "Kimchi.sg" account to prevent impersonation. But later I asked to be renamed back to Kimchi.sg, and somehow that has caused the log to be messed up. Kimchi.sg «C¦T» 01:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back! Warofdreams talk 13:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Defeated once more by the user logs... hope you don't mind me being careful. Anyway, welcome back! --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Could somebody close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SE7 the account appears to have been involved with some Socks and has a current tally of 1-13. I would normally close it, but as I voted and am cited by other opposers, I can't.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

...is up and running here.

Bureaucrats are welcome to add themselves to the list.

I think we need to craft some simple instructions for this page, to the tune that urgent requests or ones relating to RTV can be sent to the mailing list, most queries should just be at BN and for the fastest possible service, post here and to the mailing list!

A nice fat obvious "hit me" button would also be good. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And once it's right, we should add it to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats and perhaps WP:RTV too. --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The top of this page says "Request removal by email". Removal of what? John Reaves 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Existence! but yes, that really needs clarifying, i've no idea what it's referring to. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I had copied it from WP:Requests for oversight, so I just must have forgotten to adapt it fully. I have updated it to just say "Email the bureaucrats directly", and also requested full page protection, as it would be bad if the email link were changed. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dweller, the next step to make it easier to usurp Crat (talk · contribs), re-register it, and set the email in it to the new crat mailing list. Then people can click Special:EmailUser/Crat and send a message directly to the list. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, why not User:Bureaucrat or User:Bureaucrats? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to spell. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Usurping all of them might not be a bad idea, especially how they could easily be conceived as the actual role account. Hmm, I wonder if there is a User:Administrator, or similarly, User:Checkuser, by any chance? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've owned User:Checkuser for some time, but it's email points at me right now. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really hard to spell. Majorly talk 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if people can spell it. They can just follow a link to it. I'd rather have special:emailuser/bureaucrats linked on pages than having the email address there. The former will lead to almost no spam. Angela. 04:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

special:emailuser/bureaucrats is now working. But there are still only 7 6 people subscribed to the list. Angela. 05:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As a related idea, couldn't that be done for any group? Say, Checkusers or Oversight, to make it easier to mail tips to the groups? rootology (C)(T) 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, dang, special:emailuser/checkuser & special:emailuser/oversight do exist. Do they work? rootology (C)(T) 06:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight does work and will get the attention of the oversighters, and Checkuser right now will spam me since I own the account and all. MBisanz ^talk 07:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say there's a teething problem with the cratlist, in that the test email sent to it failed to arrive. I'll have a root around when I have a moment. --Dweller (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you subscribed under a different email? We need to clarify who is supposed to be on the list - I'd assumed it was only bureaucrats but that's obviously not the case. Angela. 13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've only approved bureaucrats. Why do you think non crats are on there? --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it, thanks Angela. I'd not added myself as a recipient, duh. And I'm reviewing those I've accepted. Please forgive the teething problems. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To help this it might be worth adding a column to WP:CRAT that is Mailing List: Y/N. If anything it will help would track who you've registered. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I added that[2], though I'm not sure if it helpful. Right now, only Dweller is listed as subscribed, as he is the only one I was sure of. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to be flagged as receiving. I'd rather the others add themselves than for me to do so, just in case they'd rather not be marked as such. --Dweller (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This email list is not replacing the noticeboard or our talk pages, but if we are not careful we are going to be barraged with simple inquiries. We need fine tune exactly what types of requests should be sent to this mailing list, and we need to make this explicitly clear to the end user. Nearly all inquiries and requests should be made here on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard or on our talk pages. Kingturtle (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One way to ensure that is not to respond to casual emails generated via the mailing list. If it is a request that should be handled here, simply respond with "Please post your question here." This will teach people not to go via the mailing list unless it is necessary. If it is a personal request wherein I am contacting somebody directly, then the receipient should be able to tell the difference (Eg does the mailing list identify itself as the mailing list?)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For your sakes, I hope you get less e-mail than Arbcom-l does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One idea is to have an email bounce back to the sender. The email could detail where to go to get certain answers, and explain what types of emails will be handled on the emailing list. Kingturtle (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris G has done some work and come up with this, to replace of NoSeptember's version.

I think it's looking very good. My only questions relate to the differences between it and NoSeptember's version. I've spotted two:

• NoSeptember had the Crats in order of seniority, rather than alpha order
• NoSeptember indicated months people weren't Crats in (before appointment or following resignation) with an –

Does anyone care about these being missing? Are there other changes we'd like to suggest? Cheers --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have any problem with the first, and the second can probably be logically deduced, although it would be helpful. bibliomaniac15 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi, the closing time for Ironhold's likely unsuccessful RfA has come and gone nine hours ago. I have been bold and placed it "on hold" to eliminate further comments, modifying the template language to make it clear it wasn't done by a crat, and left a note on the talk page. Could someone actually close it though? Thanks, and if I was out of line, I know where the woodshed is.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I've now closed the RfA; thanks for the note here. There's no harm in letting an RfA run a few hours over, but equally, placing it on hold didn't do any harm. I'm not sure that it's a great precedent, as potentially a user might use it to place a very close RfA on hold after adding their comment, preventing any discussion of it. Warofdreams talk 11:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Would not have touched it had it been at all close to the discretion zone.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ST47 has added RfB functionality. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest RFB isn't appearing on the tally table. Some people get upset if it's not there, so I thought I'd give a headsup. Majorly talk 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because it is an RfA table, not an RfB table. ST47 needs to be notified. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Talked to him on IRC, says he's got it done. Should show on next update. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:I am watching you left a comment on my talk page today, and I noticed from his user page that he's had a self-nominated RFA running since the beginning of March at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/I_am_watching_you. It's never been added to the RFA page, meaning the listing wasn't completed, and it has a sole oppose vote from a couple of weeks ago. The RFA, of course, won't pass if it is listed but it seems like it's been forgotten for some time. Esteffect (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking the user what their intentions are? –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to them, however their user page states that they would like to become an admin, and "please approve me". Therefore I'm pretty certain that the intention was to listen the RFA properly at first, but as it started in early March, I'm not sure what to do (especially as their inexperience will see it NOTNOW'ed). Esteffect (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe a crat could just SNOW it and leave them an explanation? SoWhy 19:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking. Esteffect (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, if it isn't transcluded it should not be snowed. if it were snowed, that would imply that they actually ran and would have to be referenced at some future date when they actually run. I think the best course would be for somebody to approach them and advise them of the expectations. A premature snow sounds kind of bity.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC) EDIT guess it is a mute point as KingTurtle already closed it... shoulda clicked the link before posting ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I closed it as Not now. I will contact User:I am watching you about my action. Kingturtle (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What about deleting it as G2? As it stands they've now "failed" (or had an "unsuccessful") RFA that never went live. –xeno (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I could support that... I don't like the idea of a having an RfA that failed that never went live.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm recusing myself from closing the RfB.

I'll use the mailing list to see if someone/s is/are and will remain available to close it. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't we save that for important/emergency issues? I think the outcome of his RFB is pretty obvious so I don't know why you'd recuse yourself, but please don't spam all the bureaucrats for something as trivial as closing an RFB. Otherwise I probably shouldn't be on the mailing list if it's going to be used for stuff like that. Andre (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dweller supported AnonDiss' RfB, so it would be inappropriate for him to close it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had my reasons for thinking some Crats might prefer if the discussion was private, but Raul's intervention renders it all irrelevant. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Having supported Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident, I too am recusing myself from closing it....but if it isn't closed in 2 hours, I'll step in. Kingturtle (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If Raul isn't about, I'm also available to close it. Warofdreams talk 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Based upon the number of supports and the strenght of the opposes, I don't think anybody would object to somebody closing it that !voted.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – bits kindly glued back on again by Kingturtle

Having taken a liberal view on my recall criteria I asked for the bit to be removed last night. After discussion on my talk (and noting that no-one ever asked me to have the bit removed - it was my choice based on my standards) would a passing 'crat be kind enough to turn my bits back on again. the bit turning on puerile innuendo is totally intentional :) Pedro :  Chat 

 Done Kingturtle (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ta! Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Acalamari 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I might not be saying that at 07:00 tomorrow when I'm looking at CSD ..... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good show, welcome back! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, signature is too blue. –xeno (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro, and don't do that again! :) Majorly talk 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto... you scared me for a while there! Xclamation point 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Pedro. Synergy 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that's more like it. Useight (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Apoliges, WP:USURP isn't really designed for this scenario - which is why I am posting here - but I'm happy to file a request there if necessary. Am I allowed to usurp User:Jarry to use as a Doppelganger? A cursory glance would suggest it has 0 contributions and only 1 logged action (registering a different username!). If I can, I would like to, please. Thank you! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and put the request at USURP, they will be able to answer your questions. there.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked this about a year ago, and was told to redirect the accounts page/talk page to my account as opposed to usurpation. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm no 'crat, but it's just run over the open period and it looks pretty clear :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's got an hour to go yet, but I doubt it matters at this point. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the time used is UTC (mostly equivalent to GMT) but because of British Summer Time, the time in the UK has now fallen out of kilter with this. You can se 'Wikipedia time' in the top-right of the screen. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Raul654 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Please welcome our latest bureaucrat, User:Anonymous Dissident! Warofdreams talk 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah dear, I clearly haven't got the hang of BST yet, despite me being here for my entire life. I'll get used to it sometime, preferably before the clocks go back again. Congratulations, AD. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I object! 76.223.14.49 (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello Bureaucrats,

My name is Mike and I hold an account on en.wikipedia under the name of Icestorm815. Shortly after I became an administrator personal events arose in my life that prevented me from being able to edit on wikipedia for a while. With those events in the past, I am now able to resume editing. Unfortunately, I have misplaced my password and did not set an e-mail to my account. I tried contacting a developer, Tim Starling, to see if he could recover my password, but it appears that he is quite busy right now as he hasn't responded to my request for about a week. Fortunately I still remember the phrase that I set for my SHA-1 personal identity code, so you can confirm that I am the original owner of the account. So the question I have for you bureaucrats is if any one of you would have any objections to me creating a new account and if one of you would be willing to grant me admin abilities?

If any 'crat has any questions or concerns about my request I would be more than willing to discuss it here or to talk to one of you through e-mail. I know that granting admin abilities is something that needs due consideration so I understand if you guys wish to check out the validity of my request. Thank you for your time. - Mike 76.232.148.134 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An email address will be required. :) If you send me an email, I'll be willing to confirm that you are who you say you are. X! :  Chat  00:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope that this just managed to coincide on April 1... X! :  Chat  00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried that this is an April Fool's joke, rest assured that it's not. :) Look on the bright side, I'm here to help the onslaught of vandalism! Ok, I'll shoot you an e-mail right away. - Mike 76.232.148.134 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a case of bad timing, I guess. Made me laugh. Useight (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, X!, I tried to e-mail you but it says that your account isn't accepting e-mails from users right now. Could you possibly disable it or would someone else be willing to let me e-mail them? - Mike 76.232.148.134 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, because X can't help you in this manner. If you could join irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-tech (if you don't have an IRC client here is a web based applet, just choose a username, and click connect). The people there can help you. Prodego ^talk 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not a crat, but I can certainly help. X! :  Chat  01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but not even a crat will be able to recover this account (although they could create a new one). So neither of us can do that. Needless to say whoever takes whatever action is needed will need to be the only one to see what was hashed, to guarantee it is secure. So I am not sure what you, or I, can do here to help. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed and password reset by sysadmin User:Werdna. Prodego ^talk 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to all that helped. Icestorm815 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To combat issues raised at WT:RFA and elsewhere, I have nominated WP:RFA for bureaucratship. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. flSiet (aklt) 10:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So I took a very unexpected wikibreak. I've recently gotten back into the swing of things, but I'm wondering if there's much that I missed in the past month and a half or so. I've put in a request for the 'crat mailing list, but that's the only thing I've noticed that's gone on.

Basically, I just want to make sure I don't accidentally screw anything up. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides our NEW CRAT Anonymous Dissident, you didn't miss much. bibliomaniac15 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you've hardly missed anything :D Happy‑melon 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, and another RfB over there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome back into the fold. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I supported Anonymous Dissident in rhymed couplets, which you might find amusing. I would have done the same for you, but I'm not sure what rhymes with "EVula." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• copula (in a bad accent)
• Dracula
• Chocula (cereal)
• funicula

-- Avi (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Crats may be interested in following this proposal to ban User:DougsTech from RfA. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech is for now under any username banned from RfX, see here. He can appeal via RFAR. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A 12 hour "discussion" produces a community decision? I hate to be a pain, but my objections to this weren't addressed, nor those of many others.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed this finding - no way was there consensus for this change and a minimum of 24 to 48 hours discussion is required to allow everyone to comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On the third I renamed Haseo445 to DeathBerry on CHU. Although the software is supposed to reattribute all edits and erase the old account, somehow it appears that this wasn't done, and the user still has control over Haseo445. Is it a problem, or are their edits still reattributing? bibliomaniac15 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Users with lots of edits can take a few days to reattribute, I've even seen it crash the server and fail to complete. Does he still have control over the old account? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am requesting a volunteer 'crat to review the ongoing RFC and provide a statement about what they think the consensus is on the issues under discussion. This opinion would not be binding, but it might help the various editors involved to find common ground. I am also hopeful that such an opinion would be considered by ArbCom should they be asked to intervene in this matter, as now seems likely. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Left a question on the talk page there. The consensus seems to be the cold fusion issue was serious but further action would probably require recent bit abuse (lack thereof would show he's trying to change) and a pattern of bit abuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A bureaucrat is requested to assess consensus at the above discussion in order to determine whether the 'bug' ought to be fixed as proposed. As this would involve changing the role of bureaucrats, it has been suggested that having one of you assess consensus is questionable. This needs to be settled one way or another, so I raise the issue here. Skomorokh 15:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

While it has about 2/3 support, it falls short of what I'd call enough consensus to say a definite "yes, let's implement it". I'd suggest posting some notices to try to get more partcipation. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just now seeing this thread, but I'd like to respond anyway. The proposal was posted to three high profile places (CENT, AN, and ANI). I'm not sure where else I was supposed to post the notification but I believe I heard that someone might have posted to VP also. We received plenty of participation, much more than I thought honestly. Sadly, in the end I feel it was rejected by the community. No consensus. Synergy 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I sent you an email. Galoubet (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a crat should address this question. I suggest a crat does put the RFA on hold for now, to allow Law to get his RL in order before continuing. It would be unfair to let the candidate's unexpected RL trouble influence their chances. Regards SoWhy 22:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting on hold. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that SoWhy 22:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I thank Anon Dis for closing this RfA in a manner that clearly indicates he read over the !votes and made a decisions based upon the overall discussion. That said, I am curious of the blatant canvassing was taken note of when closing this RfA. This can be found here, where a user posts to a wikiproject populated by "Orlady fans" notifying them of the RfA. Shortly after users from said project stopped by and supported. While I can not assume all bad faith here, and can not say for sure their !votes were simply solicited by that comment, I can assume some were. While I agree this should have been brought up here beforehand, I feel that some form of discussion needs to be done amongst the 'crats and the community as to how we should handle this situation, and how we should respond to it in the future. Tiptoety ^talk 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just dropped AD a note, informing him of this thread. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's so bad about canvassing. I don't know why RFAs have to held in über secrecy - any link to anywhere is wrongly seen as a bad thing, for some reason. If there was good justification for this user not to be an admin, the bureaucrat would have weighed it appropriately against the supporting votes. Clearly the bureaucrat found differently. Majorly talk 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also I note that you opposed the user, Tip, so perhaps you are biased here. Majorly talk 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Majorly, I did in fact oppose the candidate and that inherently makes me biased. That said, I did not start this thread in hopes to get the decision reversed, but instead to ensure that (1) the closure was made with the "canvassing" in mind (as AD's statement did not reference it) and (2) to decide how we should deal with such canvassing in the future. Does the community feel it is truly disruptive? How do the 'crats feel about it? So I ask that this is not looked at as an attempt to change the outcome. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly to an extent. As far as I can tell, there was no blatant canvassing, per se; rather, Kaldari simply posted a link. Of course, I'm unaware of anything that might have gone on off-wiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree... I think it was a bad call, but it was not as totally inappropriate. (EG she wasn't telling people to go support Orlady, but made the announcement neutral.) I do have some concerns about contacting individuals whom you think might look favorably/unfavorably on candidates. But posts to wikiprojects? I could almost support making that standard, kind of like they do at AFD when an article is nom'd for deletion, they will notify the appropriate wikiproject. If a person is a positive influence at the wikiproject, then their input can only affirm that fact. If the person is a negative influence at the wikiproject, an announcement might alert us to that as well. Plus, I can't help be beleive that a lot of covert canvassing doesn't go on behind closed doors already. By making some standard practice, we might be able to manage it better.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT oh yeah, the canvassing allegations were active long enough before the RfA closed that if the community felt strongly about it, I think we would have started to see a rash of people switching from support/neutral to neutral/oppose.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well put. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's legitimate to worry about canvassing friends, especially off-wiki. Sending an email of the form "hey, don't forget to sink that idiot's RfA" or "support that RfA cause this guy always cracks me up on IRC" is one thing. Of course, you wouldn't write this on-wiki because you'd (deservingly so) look like an irresponsible dickhead. Notices to a WikiProject are quite different: the recognition one gets from project members is due first and foremost to one's work for the project and interactions with its members. 76.67.205.55 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps legitimate to worry about it, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. Only the closing bureaucrat can decide if any concerns raised in the opposition are strong enough to outweigh any blatant inappropriate canvassing. Majorly talk 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Agreed... like I said, I would not have any problem with somebody asking wikiprojects for input. There is just as likely a chance of finding people who dislike the user as like the user and if they have ongoing relationships with the user let's hear it. Now, that being said, I would suggest having some sort of alerter (like they do at AFD) notifying the community that certain projects were notified.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add my 0.02 €. I do not see much reason for discussion. As pointed out above, neutral notes do not fall under WP:CANVASS and it might even be beneficial. But furthermore, I see no problem even if people try to canvass. Hear me out. An RFA is closed by consensus, i.e. by judging strengths of supporting and opposing arguments for a candidate. So if more people !vote to support or oppose a candidate but they do not add new reasons to do so, the balance of arguments will not be changed by the act of canvassing. If they do add new arguments to the debate, the canvassing actually served a positive purpose because the closing crat can now consider more arguments in their decision on what consensus is. Either way, the RFA itself will not be disrupted by (or may even benefit from) canvassing and we can deal with the users who breach WP:CANVASS individually for their actions. And if the candidate canvassed, that just adds a reason to consider when assessing consensus. Regards SoWhy 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two "euros" as well. I feel that the current view on canvassing is much to strict. People call small notifications, someone even mentioning an RfA in IRC, and any other small mention of an RfA is blatant canvassing. WP:CANVASS states that in order to be a friendly notice, and not be canvassing, it must be...

1. Limited posting.
   1. I think that a mention in IRC is limited, is it not?
2. Neutral
   1. What if someone says "Oh look, SoWhyAndSo has an RfA open"? That's not inviting anyone to !vote, or to take a stance.
3. Nonpartisan
   1. Now, if someone says to the talk page of WP:LOWWSTORFAS (League of Wikipedians who strive to oppose RfAs), then it could be considered canvassing. But not if someone posts it to WP:VP, where all types of Wikipedians read.
4. Open
   1. A notice to a talk page, IRC, or WR would not be canvassing, as all of those were open. Now, if someone says in a bunch of emails, then it would. The previous examples are not.

I do have concerns about canvassing via posting a notice to WR saying to "oppose that bitch". I do have concerns about email saying to "sink that user's RfA". I do have concerns about people putting a notice in a topic that says "EVERYONE GO SUPPORT Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/X!!!!!!". But is it really necessary to scream of canvassing when someone just mentions an RfA in a non-RfA area? I'm not saying that canvassing is good, nor am I saying that canvassing never happens. I am saying that the current RfA climate is much to hostile. Xclamation point 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason why a posting, even neutrally-worded, to a WikiProject talk page, user talk page is that the poster most likely already knows the general disposition of the editors watching the page towards the editor in question. On IRC, you can see who else is online, and wait until you see a preponderance of editors with your preferred leanings before posting. This is less practical if the channel has lots of users watching it, and is therefore less of a reason for concern.

I have no problem with a notice to a widely seen forum such as the Village Pump or Wikipedia Review, as there is no way to guarantee which editors are going to see the notice.--Aervanath (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC

The problem with IRC is that A) there is no public record of as to what was said 2) it could be said to select people at select times (Whew, I never thought John would leave, now is the time to make the announcement). That being said, we all know, even those who don't frequent IRC know that it goes on.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious about the distinction made between support and the supposedly neutral notice. The most commonly used wording here was "Thought you might want to know about Orlady's Request for adminship." If the nominator had instead posted "Thought you might want to support Orlady's Request for adminship", would that have made a substantial difference to the RfA? Dean B (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to speculate on whether a change would have been observed, but it's fair to say the canvassing concerns would have been more serious if the message had read like that. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If the request were worded to be "Come support" then I can pretty much guarantee that people would not have sat idly on the benches, they would have stormed the bastille. Particularly if it came from the nom/candidate. Second, if the nom had made more comments, it might have garnered more opposition as well. As it were, when the issue was brought to light, the nom acknowledge err and tried to rectify it. If she had contacted 20 people directly, it might have resulted differently.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with messages. I have a problem with who receives the messages. If 100 people would turn out, and I contact 80 people who are favorable to me, the percentage will be off balance. Rarely, do you contact those who are against you. I, because my RfA hit 70 supports and WR already sent out mass canvassing to oppose me, decided to join in and try to get the opposes over 100 by asking some people at IRC to oppose me (and yes, many of them did, except for one, who went Neutral in order to annoy me). However, I tend to do things backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The example provided by Tiptoety was not biased, partisan or secret, not was it random or spam. Therefore, I don't see it as canvassing. I do not see such posts as harmful to Wikipedia. It is okay for people to notify others in a neutral way of goings-on here. Kingturtle (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think blatant and open canvassing is more dangerous than behind the scenes. Why? It shows that they have such a disrespect from the system that they think they can get away with their action and no one cares. With your opinion, it seems that they are right. Its called gaming the system. By contacting only people friendly to you, you put forth a disproportion amount of people. Its like holding an election but only telling those who are registered in your party. Wikipedia is not a Democracy, and canvassing is a tactic used to game a Democracy. Therefore, remove canvassing and return to neutral discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Remark by closing bureaucrat

I suppose I should make a remark here. The canvassing was considered, and I made sure to review how Kaldari's postings may have influenced the RfA. I think what needs to be looked at is the actual content of Kaldari's remark. The postings themselves were undoubtedly in poor form – stopping by user talk pages and dropping duplicate messages about an RfA is almost always in poor form, unless it regards drastically new evidence in the RfA that certain participants are likely to be concerned with or interested in. However, despite this, Kaldari's message was one of notification rather than outright instruction – if the notified users supported the RfA, they must have had their own reasons for believing that Orlady would be suited to adminship, because nowhere in Kaldari's message were they specifically called to support. So, yes, the canvassing was taken into account, and so was the actual content of the canvassing.
One other thing that I perhaps should have cited as influencing my decision is the fact that more than a few of the opposers made a point to concede somewhat in their arguments, variously saying that [Orlady] "does very, very good work" (#32), "is an asset" (#31), "clearly does good work" (#27), has a "majority" of "excellent" edits (#17), among others. We can see from this a certain "reluctance" or extent of acknowledgement that does have impacts on the way individual remarks are to be treated within the collective opposition (and support, incidentally, as there were a few "weak supports" in that section – but I found this trend to be more prevalent in the opposition).
I hope I've given as clear and detailed an explanation as needed, but I'm happy to respond to any other queries if they arise (of course). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

After talking to Anonymous Dissident earlier about some of his considerations and how he weighed them, I have 100% confidence in his judgment on the specific matter (Orlady's RfA close). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I too feel that the close was made correctly, and I thank him for clarifying this small matter. Tiptoety ^talk 05:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Commenting as a bureaucrat, I can honestly say that I completely support Anonymous Dissident in his closing of the RfA.

Commenting as an editor, I'm glad to see that there's some interest in our canvassing guidelines being lightened a bit. I think they're a tad draconian as-is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Canvassing (along with POINT, COI, IAR and some others) is one of the most misunderstood and misused policies/guidelines there is. It would be well worth clarifying things on its talk page. Majorly talk 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Musing on this matter as the subject of the RfA, I have often thought it "unnatural" that Wikipedia depends heavily on the "stumble upon" phenomenon to get input to discussions, but I assume that WP:Canvassing evolved to stem the tide of widespread disruption that would occur if canvassing were allowed. One drawback I see in the current arrangement is that it is effective only against on-wiki activity. Wikipedia is almost powerless to prevent off-wiki canvassing, which can happen via many different channels. For example, I imagine that this "wikipediareview" forum thread brought at least as many eyes to my RfA as any notifications that were made on-wiki, but it appears to me that there's almost nothing that WP can do about it. (For the record, I don't know much of anything about that forum, however, including how large a following it has or why someone there decided to focus attention on me.)

As for on-wiki canvassing about my RfA, it appears to me that it had minimal effect. I fear I let a genie out of the bottle, though, by commenting to Doncram about comments he made to two specific editors that looked like canvassing. Those turned out to be isolated cases, so I shrugged them off, but my comments to Doncram caused some other users to become aware of WP:Canvassing and raise a general alarm. Meanwhile, the message that Kaldari posted at the Tennessee Wikiproject probably had little effect, as I have never been a major player in that Wikiproject, and several Tennessee contributors had already commented on the RfA. The other users that Kaldari notified are people who I have interacted with and who had once given me barnstars, but they were not people I interact with frequently (and one of my chief opposers also gave me a barnstar), so it was not unreasonable to request their perspectives. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, one of the Tennessee project members came long before the notice on the WikiProject page and was actually number three. Such a thing should be a source of pride in one's RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

People generally do a good job of pointing out when we're getting a lot of "unexpected" voters in RfAs. I don't see canvassing as a big problem, yet, and we've got tools to deal with it if the problem gets bigger. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone resysop my account please. Thanks Kevin (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Former admin in good standing, looks fine to reflag to me. Xclamation point 03:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done, welcome back Kevin. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, you always beat me, AD. I was finding this http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=1419948&oldid=1419774 just to make sure, and you go and swoop in :D. Welcome back, Kevin :) -- Avi (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to update WP:FORMER when you resysop someone. :) MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to do it when you got in there first, MBisanz. You're quite quick yourself. ;) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. Kevin (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably minor, but Kww's RfA is listed as unsuccessful rather than consensus not reached. I believe that's incorrect. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure of the etiquette (or protection status of the page). Thanks! Hobit (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It was indeed the incorrect wording. I have standardized the wording. Useight (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

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

Resolved

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

Link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

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

 Done by Ncmvocalist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks,

AGK 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted, and I concur with the above - nicely done indeed. Pedro :  Chat  08:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone should view things logged out as well, every once in a while. Editing logged out can run into problems of course, but that can find things that just viewing logged out doesn't show you. I kind of hope the Usability group (or something similar) does eventually get around to testing how friendly certain areas are by using test accounts. Kind of like those Michelin Guide reviewers that turn up unannounced. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. Just a quick request for one of our learned stewards instigate the removal of my 'crat flag. I have done my utmost to serve the community since my RFB but recent events, not limited to the date-delinking debacle, have highlighted the conflict between the perceived responsibilities I have in my position as a cautious 'crat and the approach I take here as a serious and dedicated editor. I took on the role over 14 months ago and despite my five month sabbatical, I managed to deal with some RFA promotions and quite a few renames without too many complaints. All that notwithstanding, the very last thing I want to do is bring the role of a Wikipedian 'crat into disrepute. Several editors within this Wikipedia will doubtless see this as "just desserts", and good luck to them.

My only goal here, as it always has been, is to improve Wikipedia; to generate featured content in accordance with our policies and guidelines, and with no ulterior motive nor any kind of disruption in mind. Article quality is paramount; without that in mind, 'crats, admins and the rest of the community might as well head back to Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. So, much as I would hate for this to deteriorate into an Oscar meltdown, thanks to everyone who has supported me in this role, most significantly Dweller and the much-missed WJB. As Douglas Adams would have said, So long, and thanks for all the trout... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A steward has followed your request. Best wishes to you. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. Thank you very much for your service as a 'crat. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you reconsider? Your valuable work as a bureaucrat has not been put into question at all and I doubt that anybody believes that your conduct isn't befitting of a bureaucrat. You've done some fantastic work in the role nobody was ever suggesting you lose your crat bit. As far as I'm concerned (and I suspect most others), the date linking case is completely separate and it's no way certain at this point that you're going to have any findings made against you. Even if they are, that doesn't bring your bureaucrat role into disrepute. Please do think about this again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What Ryan said mainly. Your cratship and this issue, or any other, are not in competition and one does not interfere with the other. I doubt anyone would claim that you abused your crat-position for anything at all and as such there is no reason to give back your crat-bit because of this or any issue. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, SoWhy, but as you may be intimately aware of, there are some elements within this Wikipedia who use just about every editing opportunity to malign my fulfillment of the role of 'crat. To suggest that "nobody was ever suggesting you lose your crat bit" is kind but simply untrue. It's a real shame as I never felt that I'd abused any position the community had generously allowed me to take, but I have no desire to bring the position into (further?) disrepute. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misphrased this. It's natural that people who you are in dispute with will say that you are not fitting for the role. But not even Tennis expert claimed that you have abused your crat-status, just that you are (in his opinion) not to be a crat. But if we were to expect unanimity with every decision to make someone an admin or crat, almost all of us (myself included of course) would not be made admins or crats, so that cannot be a sensible reason to resign this status. What I meant is that I know of noone who can impartially claim these things and the reaction here proves that quite well. So I hope you reconsider your decision, maybe after a few weeks/months if you need it. Regards SoWhy 06:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you never brought the role into any disrepute. There will always be elements that are discontent with any performance - if you were perfect in every possible way, people would complain about that. In your shoes I would only be concerned if complaints were significant in number or from those whose opinion you particularly respect, but it is your decision and I echo the folks above who thank you for your work. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I second Avruch. We had our differences TRM, but I have never thought you were not a good crat. Like others, I hope you one day reconsider, because I know where your heart is. Best. Synergy 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rambling Man, you are a valued, trusted editor here. We're bound to encounter conflicts along the way. I'm saddened that this conflict has led to your resignation. I hope you continue your devotion to Wikipedia, and I would gladly renominate you for Bureaucrat if you ever so desire. Cheers, and see you in the funny pages, Kingturtle (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You say nominate, but wouldn't he qualify for reflagging, being a voluntary stepping down? (I'm just curious, I understand that a re-nom would also help to prove to Rambling Man we still want him flagged.) –xeno ^talk 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that TRM could ask for the 'crats rights back without RFB unless a substantial amount of time had passed and he was totally inactive. This is a hit to the limited resource we have of quality bureaucrats. However I well understand that TRM thinks this is the honourable way to do things. Perhaps the editor cited in the diff above will realise what is best for Wikipedia and revoke his comments thus enabling a re-cratship sans-drama.Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This would likely become one of those RfB questions in the future ;-) Some would say that his stepping down due to the issues cited above would mean that he did so "under a cloud" thus would need to go through the RfB process again. Others would say that the actions cited above have nothing to do with his role as crat, and thus should not have compelled him to step down. Personally, I fall into the later category, based on what little I read, I don't see the stuff cited above as interfering with your role as 'crat.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am incredibly saddened by this news, it is very sad that this date delinking dispute has ended up becoming so destructive. You have been both a good bureaucrat and administrator, as well one of Wikipedia's finest contributors, in my eyes. It is unfortunate that this has had no recognition by some in this dispute. These are however a minority, and I do also hope one day you will reconsider and run for bureaucratship again, and continue your great contributions in any case. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What a shame indeed. I'm glad to see you haven't resigned on Simple though. Majorly talk 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a shame indeed; you were a fine bureaucrat, and I advise you to reconsider. I hope that you shall stick around Wikipedia; your content work has been excellent, and we can always use editors :). I'd agree with those above as well; you have done nothing wrong with your role as a bureaucrat, and you would qualify for a reinstatement without an RfB. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has its share of not-so-prudent administrators. I encourage you, Rambling Man, to sit back, watch how events unfold over the next several weeks, take a deep breath, and contribute as an administrator at a less stressful (moderated) level; that is, tailor the scope of your admin duties so the shoe fits the foot. I take note of an administrator (a high school chemistry teacher) who merrily edits articles and entirely shuns admin-like behavior. Frankly, I think Wikipedia needs more admins with your temperament and judgement, not less. Best wishes. Hope to see you back in the saddle soon. Greg L (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Very sad indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is quite an unfortunately loss. Good to see that you've decided to retain the sysop flag and remain an editor, however. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's an absolute shame that you have felt compelled to take this route, Rambling Man. I strongly agree with Ryan Postlethwaite above that whatever happened in the date delinking situation is completely and utterly unrelated to your statuses as bureaucrat and administrator. I genuinely hope you will return to the position at some point in the future, and that you will not feel pressed to withdraw from editing or administrative duties in general. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for The Rambling Man to relinquish his cratship; a minor skirmish is part of the job, and part of the pressure. I stand firm in the face of stress, however unconvincing that may appear; but I am not going to give up my admin flag without a fight. Rambling Man, take a break, perhaps, but don't be deterred by a short-term setback. Please reconsider. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's a catch-22, I suppose. There are a handful of bureaucrats who ought to step down. The Rambling Man, in showing his sincere willingness to step down, however, has proven that he has the integrity we're looking for and should stay. It's a double whammy because his integrity is further reminder -- a harsh spotlight -- on those who ought to step down but lack his character and commitment to both the role of bureaucrat and the project itself, and instead hang on to their roles of power with a mortal grip. --JayHenry (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an objective party when it comes to the linking issue, so now't about that. However, I have recently become more intimately acquainted with the harassment within the 'tennisphere' that TRM and others continually face. Despite this, he has offered me help of all sorts, and sound advice. I do wish him well. One editor may be jumping for joy, but it's obvious from the comments above that there are many, many more sad faces out there because TRM stepped down as a 'crat. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is very disappointing news and I am appalled that it has come this far. There are only a handful of admins and bureaucrats here who I consider exemplary, TRM being one of them. I fully support either a reconsideration from TRM now, or a re-flagging in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future. Maedin\^talk 11:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to join others in thanking TRM for his work as bureaucrat. I have not been around much of late but it was always my opinion that TRM made an excellent bureaucrat and it is therefore a shame that he feels unable to continue in that capacity. WJBscribe (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad day for Wikipedia

TRM resigning his crat hat makes this is a bad day for Wikipedia.

In February, I was moved to describe the date delinking case as an "appalling cesspit of vindictive bad behaviour". The villification of good faith editors that has taken place there by bad faith editors is appalling. Given the provocation TRM has experienced during his efforts to improve tennis-related articles, I'm amazed his reponses have been so mild.

I have 100% confidence in TRM's abilities as a Crat and am grateful for the thousands of edits he's made relating to the various types of name changes especially. His use of Crat and admin tools cannot and are not reproached by other good faith editors.

When you're ready, TRM, come on back in, the water's lovely. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I view this as non controversial. There was no serious move to decrat TRM. The dates issues, as mentioned above, is unrelated. I'd recrat TRM upon request. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't personally object, is there in fact any precedent for a Bureaucrat getting their rights back after a voluntary resignation? Obviously that's what happens with admins, but I can't recall such a case within the Bureaucracy. Dragons flight (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should we handle this any other way than with admins? Crats are essentially admins who the community signaled to place trust with few more decisions and tools. If there was no controversy when a crat resigned, there is no reason to assume that this community decision is not valid anymore, so even if there is no precent with crats, plenty of precedent with admins show that the situation is basically the same. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely as SoWhy says. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate: Bureaucrats are few in number and held to substantially more rigorous standards of selection. Since there exists a higher standard for their initial promotion, it is not unreasonable to suggest the community might desire a higher standard for reconfirmation (such as full new RFB). More generally though, Bureaucrats are charged with assigning powers in accordance with established consensus in the community. If the issue of restoring Bureaucrat rights truly is without precedent, and has never been discussed before, then I would say that Bureaucrats lack a mandate for making such a promotion until either a new RFB occurs or the community reaches a consensus that automatic restoration should include Bureaucrats. (I'm not actually sure whether a similar case may have occurred in the past, but I don't recall any examples.) There would seem to be no harm in asking the community how they want such cases handled. Personally, I don't think there is any harm in such restorations, but I don't think it behooves Bureaucrats to be cavalier about giving out that flag without asking the community if they approve of such restorations. Dragons flight (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather ahead of itself. TRM has not requested being recratted and to-date has neither indicated that he would or would not do such a thing. If he did, I don't think the Crats typically can be accused into rushing into things without considering the role of consensus. This isn't just about TRM - it would be great if WJB Scribe decided to return, or some of our other former hard-working Crats. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I put look at it the same way I look at Admin's. An admin who resigns when s/he leaves is a good thing. It helps to ensure that if their account gets hacked that it doesn't have the tools with which one could do serious damage. To that extent, and unless the community explicitly says otherwise, I fully support reinstating 'crats (both WJB and TRM). The system should be designed to encourage people to resign when they leave rather than simply "disappear." As for the question about precidence... I don't know if any 'crat has been recratted, but I do know that asking the question about being recratted has been a staple at RfB for over a year. The clear implication/expectation of said question being that 'crats who resigned voluntarily could be recratted. Nobody has ever objected or stated that 'crats who leave in good standing can't be recratted.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple points. One, he isn't "leaving" or "disappearing". TRM kept the admin bit and appears to intend to remain active as an editor, so some of your argument seems irrelevant. Secondly, I believe Cecropia is the only person to be 'crat-ed twice, and both times resulted from a successful RFB. In addition, the RFB question you point to asked about 6 resigned crats and yet both of the most recent passed RFBs said only one of the resigned 'crats should be eligible for recrat. That, by itself, is evidence that there can and perhaps should be some nuance and room for discussion here. My point is that if and when one is confronted with a largely novel decision like recratting then the natural reaction ought to be to have a discussion in the community to determine consensus before acting. Consensus might be to adopt an automatic standard for recratting, and I'm fine if that is the case, but I don't think it should simply be assumed. Dragons flight (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of simply being allowed to get the bit back just like that. However, out of all the former bcrats, I can only see the latest two resignations being regranted without an RFB. Listen: Ugen64 promoted someone out of process so resigned controversially; Ed Poor was desysopped, and failed an RFA, which clearly shows lack of trust; Optim hasn't edited since 2004, so I think our bcrats would be very hesitant indeed to auto-grant; Francs2000 hasn't edited since 2006 and resigned controversially; Essjay, well let's not go there; Danny left the foundation, and scraped through an RFA with an unusually low pass rate, which is hardly a sign of trust in the community. Eloquence is the only former bureaucrat who, using the basis of "resigned uncontroversially" for admins, would really be eligible for repromotion without an RFB (not including the latest two resignations). But then again, I think bureaucrats should use their judgement, and notice that he last participated in an RFA in 2006. So, supposing he were running for bureaucratship today, would he pass? No, of course not. Not because he's done anything wrong, but because of his inexperience with the process in the past three years. I'm simply not keen on the idea of people running the show who have not been around to know what they're dealing with. Admins, perhaps it's a little easier, and less responsibility, but bureaucrats really ought to always have trust in the community. So in summary, if TRM were to re-request on this page in the future, or WJBscribe, it would really be a case of bureaucrat discretion. Disregarding whether he resigned in good standing, it's whether he would continue to make a good bcrat or not, and still has trust in the community. Majorly talk 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I can't speak for the rest of the community, but TRM still has my trust. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To come back to a point Dweller made: The date delinking RFAr is absolutely a cesspit, as he observes and as has been demonstrated in the distasteful behaviour shown to TRM. Why is this case still open? It's been at evidence phase for four bloody months. I guess this is really the wrong place to even be mentioning this, but seriously, we need to put some pressure on the arbs to get this dealt with. Some people there obviously need bans and/or restrictions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick response

Thanks to everyone who has offered encouragement and reassurance. The volume of support has taken my breath away, and it was great to know WJB was still lurking somewhere round these parts.... While I am indebted to those of you who think "it should never has come to this" (my general paraphrasing), unfortunately it has, and per Dweller and Heimstern Läufer, among others, until the cesspit of the date delinking debacle (and its associated RFCs etc) "resolve" themselves, I feel obliged to stand by my decision. To me, it was symptomatic of that cesspit that just one editor was not even satisfied at my de-cratting, that my apparent "...outrageous and disruptive behaviors, which are ongoing..." should have obliged me to resign as sysop as well, that I should very much expect Arbcom's "punishment". Indeed, I will see how this pans out, how Arbcom deal with the whole issue and move onward from there. In the meantime, I'm going to carry on regardless, hopefully making and helping others to make more featured content and continuing in my role as admin in the way only a drastic minority has seen fit to complain about. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got many profane words that I'm keeping to myself over the matter, but I've got a lot of respect for how you've handled yourself in all of this, TRM. I'm going to take solace in the fact that you're only leaving in the capacity of bureaucrat, thankfully. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tinucherian's has been going for more than seven days, and I think we can see where it's headed. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed as successful. -- Avi (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from AN/I

I have a question, though. On meta, the stewards seem to be willing to give his bit back if he requests it. Should that happen, the RFC needs to happen. Also, should he not request it back from a steward this week, should he come back, say in a month, and ask for it back from a 'crat, is this considered to be under a cloud, or does he just get it back? If the latter, again, the RFC should go on. لennavecia 3:30 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Clarification, the Stewards are META will only give it back within 24 hours, after 24 hours he would have to come here.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Before the ANI drama whores get here - this is a very, very simple question;

• Did Scarian resign under a cloud? Yes/No

Assuming yes then RFA. Assuming no then 'crat discretion. I assume yes. No more drama for goodness sake. It really is not that complex people. Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think the steward(s) should have done anything. Third party requests are not the norm and have clearly complicated things on our end. Either he resigns gracefully on his own (including going to Meta) or we go through the RFC. The steward took the decision to desysop, though it was not an emergency, and Scarian changed his mind. He is quite within his rights to request it back from that steward at any time. Stewards are not decision-makers. Majorly talk 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he picked up his marbles and went home before contacting the Steward's does not alleviate the fact that he 1) was under the threat of an RfC 2) a cloud existed concerning his actions and 3) he requested the desysop rather than face the criticism. This is no different than somebody going through an RfC and at the end of the RfC making the same request. The fact that he didn't take the extra steps when he left should not negate the fact that he did so under a cloud.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Balloonman is right. He asked for a desysop. So let's stick to the matter at hand. لennavecia 20:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

He asked for a desysop. No need to shoot the messenger. Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to shoot the desysopee... if he wants to leave under a cloud, and this is how he has done so, there is no reason to force an RfC on him so that proper protocol can be followed.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to impart BM and my perception of your seemingly overly defensive/passive aggresive tone may be wrong. If you disagree with my comment please say so here or on my talk. This may be one of those Real English / American English things but I was actually agreeing with you? Pedro :  Chat  20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We're agreeing... it wasn't meant to be 'defensive' and if you took it that way my apologies. I'm saying that not only should we not shoot the messenger, but we shouldn't shoot the person who walked away. If we force an RfC on Scarian simply to follow proper protocol, then we would be doing him a disservice. When you said "no need to shoot the messenger," the messenger would be jennevecia. The desysopee would be Scarian, there is no need to force him to do something that his actions indicate he wants to avoid. I read majorly's post as saying, since he requested it, it isn't under a cloud---IMO since he walked away to avoid the RfC it is under a cloud.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Scarian resigned under a cloud, per se, but if nothing else it was a "controversial" desysopping. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A cloud does not mean that the person resigned because they did something wrong or incorrect, but only that there was a reason.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always viewed "under a cloud" to mean that the admin in question would have likely had their bit involuntarily removed, which I don't think was quite the case with Scarian. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of "under a cloud" has always been that if there was a real opportunity that the admin in question may lose the bit forcefully before the desysopping occurred then they would be expected to submit a new RfA. Here, there was a suggestion that an RfC may be filed - There was currently no suggestion that the Arbitration Committee may desysop Scarian so he should therefore be more than entitled to be resysopped at any time (although any RfC may then be filed into his conduct should a user feel strongly enough about it). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that when you leave like this, you are avoiding the process. We don't know if he would have lost his bit or not through the RfC process. Would it have gone to ArbCOM? I don't know the answer to either of those questions. I don't know if I would have supported or opposed removing of the bit, but retiring and stepping down in front of an RfC/ArbCOM should not be a means to avoid sanctions. By stepping down to avoid the public critique, he accepts the desired outcome of those people who are initiating the RfC/ArbCOM sanctions. Otherwise, we are telling people to continue on with the RfC/ArbCom case in absentia. That is an even worse option. "Hey Scarian, I know you quit, but we are going to judge you anyway because we didn't get to do so before your quit." Retiring and asking for a desysop should not be a means to game the system.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should he ask for his bit back, he can have it and people can start the RfC. At this stage, there was no talk of ArbCom removing it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Although it's a novel concept, an RfC of his actions now would theoretically work just as well in half a year's time, or whenever he requests his bit back, as it would within the next 24 hours—if the stewards restored the bit, and as it would within the next few days, if he hadn't requested desysopping at all and the matter had went to RfC as normal. (Indeed, the buffer period would probably result in a RfC with considerably less drama. :)) AGK 22:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Then there is no reason to stop the RfC from proceeding without him or are we establishing a precident that admin can simply walk away from Wikipedia when they mess up to avoid the bit being removed? Basically, think of it this way, an RfC is a supena to appear before court. If you choose not to appear before court, then a verdict will be rendered against you. He has chosen to accept the verdict by running away. Or we are establishing a new way to handle conflict!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he's decided to walk away now. If he returns, then the community can put its views across just as well in the future and an RfC can be run. If he chooses to come back - the community will be more than capable of asking him not to do it again. ArbCom wouldn't touch this unless he had an RfC and then decided to continue problematic behaviour. Even if an RfC was run now before he was desysopped, he wouldn't have been desysopped by ArbCom. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation but using the subpoena analogy, none was filed. We're at the stage of "cease and desist or else" threats, and it was ceased and desisted. Without taking a stand on the merits, this is moving very fast into the area of the court of public opinion prejudging and preruling before the papers have ever been submitted to court. --MLauba (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. Jenna was involved and posted to meta based on a talk post made in an huff. Meno removed the bit anyway despite Spacebirdy saying not to. I posted to Jenna and Meno stating this was a bad call and commended Birdy. Despite the poor way this was done, I consider this under a cloud. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cutting in out of sequence. Your wording is misleading. Meno didn't ignore Spacebirdy's comments. He was desysopping while Spacebirdy was making their post and Meno edit conflicted to post that he'd done it. He also gave permission for anyone to overturn. لennavecia 05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, just to clarify, your comment seems somewhat contradictory. If I am reading it correctly, you are saying that you agree with Majorly when he said that he didn't think the Steward should have removed the bit, but that you disagree with him when he said all Scarian has to do is ask for the bit back? Majorly made two points, one that you appear to agree with and the other wherein you appear to disagree.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sloppy writing on my part. I agree the posting by Jenna and removal by Meno were wrong. I disagree on asking for it back as I think it is "under a cloud". — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Jenna's request because I see it as one wherein a person left in a tiff and rather than making the request themself, they explicitly asked somebody else to do so, while providing a link that would confirm their request. It would be comperable to somebody who is blocked asking that a message be transcluded to ANI.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the intense stuff always happens when I'm at work. But I agree - I don't believe ArbCom would see this case. Useight (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenna was involved heavily and therefore should not have posted the request. It's that simple. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? What made the request different because I posted it? Why do some people believe that all actions must be from the uninvolved? Why do situations have to be explained to uninvolved people so they can make the exact same action a half hour later. Someone explain it to me, because I'm not the only one who wants to know, as evidenced by my email inbox and comments on IRC. لennavecia 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone please answer my question

I didn't ask about an ArbCase or what the opinions of the manner of his desysop were. Simple question: If Scarian comes back next week or next month and posts a request here for his bit back, what's going to happen? Ryan says he'll get it back. I don't think Rlevse answered. I would like an Arb to tell me so that I know whether or not to spend my free-time this weekend drafting an RFC. لennavecia 05:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This guidance says that a ruling by ArbCom, or having Jimbo do it (again), is the proper way to go about it. In terms of what's stopping him from un-retiring -- the guidance says: "Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request their administrators status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat." I cannot see how these were not uncontroversial circumstances, so that is likely covered (though certainty would be useful for moving on). Also in terms of an RFC, again that guidance suggests in this case going straight to ArbCom may have been appropriate, ie this was a serious incident (particularly as it was not isolated). Nja²⁴⁷ 08:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia has two excellent points: it's much easier to remember the relevant stuff that's happened when it's just happened, and that suggests that we should discuss it now, and in the past, the community has in fact tended to jump on stuff like this. But the risk of course is that by jumping on it now, we're taking something that doesn't need to blow up or cause any damage and guaranteeing that it does both. I support the general trend of the past few years towards letting things lie until they actually need to be tackled. I'll remember what happened and where to find the diffs if Scarian comes back and makes a request, and even if I didn't, someone else would. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did answer the question sort of. I said it was under a cloud. Hence I personally would not give it back as a crat. As an arb, I would not give it back for that reason either and also because the issue has not gone through WP:DR. Therefore, if it was presented to arbcom, my vote would be suggest the RFC be filed so that the community could deal with it first. Ryan's opinion was just that. No offense meant to him as I have the greatest respect for Ryan as an admin and editor, but since he's not a crat he could not actually give him the admin bit back. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rlevse. I meant to say 'crat, talk of ArbCases put arb in my head. I'm taking this as good times for me to spend my little freetime this week doing other things, so hopefully other 'crats share your view. I agree with those that believe "under a cloud" covers incidents when there is a threat of RFC or similar that could result in a desysop. So, anyway, I'm off to run my errands. Thanks again. لennavecia 14:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was just my opinion - after all, I have no authority to start dictating terms! :-) However Rlevse, I think you would find yourself in the minority with respect to ArbCom (yes, just my opinion as well!) - we'll test it should Scarian want his bit back at some point in the future as I'll file an RfArb asking for a motion to resysop. It might actually be very good to clarify the matter once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, it wouldn't be the first time I was in the arbcom minority! You could also see if a crat would resyssop, esp as arbcom has had no role in this matter, yet ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given his tantrum, and given that he's been desysopped before for a similar tantrum, I don't think that any reasonable person could possibly consider him an admin in good standing. For those that appear to want him having the bit back, just ask yourself one simple question: is the project made better by us having admins who behave like children? I think the answer is clear. Friday (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

He isn't going to request his sysop bit back. If he does, and the request is granted, we will open an RfC (and, if that holds that his conduct was unbecoming of an administrator, he will either, (a) resign further to the RfC; or (b) we will invite the ArbCom to consider the RfC and initiate desysopping proceedings). If he does request it back, and the request is declined, then he will be required to seek his mop back through the usual avenue.

(My comment doesn't offer a resolution, but neither will this discussion. Let's play things by ear and react when, or if, the time comes.)

AGK 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your response prompts two questions:

1. How do you know that he isn't going to request his sysop bit back?
2. In which alternate universe might an outburst like his yesterday be considered becoming for an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think people's faith in RFC for matters like this is seriously misplaced. We've no shortage of knuckleheads who will show up and vote "Don't desysop- he's my chat room buddy!" with no consideration of the relevant issues. We can hope that Arbcom is smart enough to recognize that, buddy or not, admins who behave this way harm the project. Friday (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Friday: I don't attempt to deny the gross failings the RfC system has. I do recognise its status as a prerequisite for having the Committee look at most non-emergency cases of administrators who are unfit for office.

Malleus: I don't really; I was simply saying that we can assume he won't—as he resigned—and follow course of action X [do nothing]; and if he does, we can follow course Y.

The question of whether his conduct yesterday is becoming of a sysop remains largely ignored by the 'crats—as we haven't a firm answer as to whether he can request his bit back.

AGK 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether or not his behaviour yesterday was becoming of an administrator has nothing to do with the bureaucrats. Do you think it was becoming? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen admins do this many times, if they can't take the responsibility, they do not deserve to be an admin. Scarian has been known to be a bit temperamental but that doesn't justify why some people think that he should no longer be an admin because only Jimbo and the Arbcom decides who remains or who looks for anther job..heh..if his outburst were those related to those silly opposes on a certain rfa then i will side with him but if not, then all i will say is that its a good idea he gave his bit away temporarily as it will give him enough time to calm down and not do something drastic that he might regret later on. An RfC against an upstanding admin will be like pointing fingers at your own kind, NOT the right way to go, discuss it with other admins and the arbcom before even thinking about starting an RfC...--Warpath (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins don't stick together like the children on the project, or the children admins, for that matter, nominating and promoting each other. If admins don't know how to behave, they should step down. The fact that the community has the power to promote but not the power to demote is one of the biggest project-side problems we have. Perhaps the biggest. لennavecia 15:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but when you try to bring up a de-adminship policy, you get shot down by the same admins and tagged as Judas or Brutas ...--Warpath (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• "If admins don't know how to behave, they should step down". They should indeed. But would they is another matter :) Majorly talk 23:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• In a perfect world, all admins would have the best interests of the project at heart, so they would gracefully resign upon request. But we all know differently. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Best interests of the project is irrelevant to whether the person would make a poor admin or not. I can think of many people who are not admins, and who never will be, yet patently have the best interests of the project at heart. On the other side, I can think of many admins, with the best interests of the project at heart, who are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Majorly talk 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"*In a perfect world,", JC93, LOL.. too much fairy tales, but i agree with Major Lee. An admin or editor for that matter will leave the project if he/she believes that what he/she might do may harm the project in anyway, well unless he lives in his parents basement and goes by the name of Grawp..hehe. One good example would be Essjay, who realized what he had done and left (or so i believe) so that he doesn't embarrass the project and the community anymore. Others should learn from this...--Warpath (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May I close this one, please. I have yet to flip a sysop bit and this seems rather straightforward :) -- Avi (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You could probably just do it now... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Off the schneid! -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page, the newbie crat says he used this: User:Rlevse/Tools#Rule_of_thumb_for_closing_RfA.2C_RfB_early as a guide, which was given to me by Nichalp when I became a crat. I'm so proud of Avi, sniffle sniffle, ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

hahah XD J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Our little Avi is growing up...luckily I brought my camcorder. Kids just grow so fast. bibliomaniac15 04:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Awwwww, did his baby bells drop, aww one minute they are running around in their diapeys or going through their living room in their tricycles, and the next day they are crats on one of the top 10 ranked website, kids..they really grow up sooo fast :) ..--Warpath (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually, it's enough to say an admin, not a crat. No one IRL thinks being a crat is a good thing. Xclamation point 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Hey, I'm a bureaucrat!" –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Sad thing is, I'm likely older than y'all (or at least feel that way )-- Avi (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-maturity and real-life-maturity are not the same, despite claims of the opposite. After all, some 30+ year-old people here behave like pubescent teens and some of those teens are the most mature and patient editors around. So no Avi, you are not older than us all. Real-life does not count SoWhy 16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe reality should be instituted. ;-) -- Mentifisto 16:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Life here is counted as wiki years so 1 year = 10 years in real life, so I was nearly 21 when i left..haha..--Warpath (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? So should I be expecting a social security check soon? Dragons flight (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DF, you're one of the few people I'd trust to calculate the expected value of your Wiki-Security pension :) -- Avi (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to provoke some thought rather than raise Cain about this, but I tend to think Everyking's RFA was closed on a pure vote count, rather than an evaluation of the strength of the arguments. (This is ironic -- or perhaps fitting -- as direct vote counting would be closer to Everyking's philosophical preference; weighting of arguments is the community's preference.)

• First, to be clear. A large number of opposers cited very valid concerns.
• But a significant number had opposes based off their misunderstanding of the exchange over Q5. The context of Everyking's previous comments and his clarifications all make it clear that he was expressing an opinion about how he would prefer Wikipedia operated, and not his understanding of what was accepted practice, or what he would do.
• One case is dealing with fact and the other opinion -- that's a non-trivial distinction. The question What is the accepted/codified/etc way to evaluate consensus on Wikipedia? has correct and incorrect answers. The question How would you prefer things work? does not have correct and incorrect answers.
• I believe that many of the Q5 opposers clearly misinterpreted this exchange, believing a question with "right" and "wrong" answers has been asked, rather than a question about an opinion. (A handful of Q5 opposers may be proponents of Wiki-thoughtcrime, although that's a different discussion). So with only a few exceptions the Q5 opposes were extremely weak or even logically meaningless.

I'm not trying to get the RFA overturned (although I would have liked a rational, as I think this was very borderline). Rather I'd hope here to spur some thinking about the general issue of whether word salad or confusion from opposers can form the basis for an oppose to which bureaucrats give weight (or vice versa, it'd be equally problematic if you had a huge volume of support based off something logically meaningless). --JayHenry (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I too thought that a rationale would have been nice in this case. The safe call here was clearly no consensus, particularly because I think history has shown that any other call at that level of numerical support would become very controversial very quickly. Since I supported EK, I might have preferred that a bureaucrat weigh the merit of the opposition when determining the outcome... But generally speaking this isn't something they do, and since we have a tendency to pick bureaucrats who are extremely consistent at not making controversial decisions we can't really expect it. I'm not sure I'd have the same sympathy for the rouge approach if my personal opinion on the candidate went the other way, and I expect many others are in the same boat. In the end, the request simply closed outside the discretionary range and that seems to take weighing the arguments out of the picture. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also interested in whether consideration is given to the damage done by a deliberate attempt to disrupt the RfA. Ottava Rima's repeated postings were sufficiently disruptive for him to be banned from the RfA at AN/I. His comments evidently influenced !votes in both directions. How does behaviour of this type influence the evaluation and closing of RfA's? Is it simply assumed that all !votes would have been the same had there been no disruption? EdChem (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW (not much), I would have closed as no consensus also (if I were a crat, and had not voted, of course). There was ample discussion from the opposition about the various reasons that Q5 was a problem; and even if there had not been, opposition arguments tend to be shorter and not cover all the bases. When you get turned down for a job or school application, they don't go into the 30 reasons they think you suck; that would be cruel, and pointless, and it would waste their time with pointless conflict. A single, reasonable-sounding reason has always been considered good enough at RFA; a philosophical discourse on its meaning is not required. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about philosophical discourse though. Perhaps I was too long-winded in introducing the topic. If an oppose or support is actually logically meaningless how can it be "reasonable-sounding"? Is "Oppose. Has incorrect opinions" a valid oppose if it is repeated amply? What about "Oppose. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the closer, but I would have closed it the same way, even though I do very much weigh the strength of the arguments involved when I close RfAs. I can't speak for all of the other currently active bureaucrats, but I know many of us weigh the strength of arguments. Weighing works on both sides though, not just against one or another. In this case I was happy to see that many people were able to let go of long past issues and only look at his current suitability and focus on recent actions. And while it is unfortunate that his opinion on consensus was very different from what people wanted to see, that doesn't make those votes misunderstandings. People used his comments and made reasoned arguments about why they felt that made him not an ideal admin candidate. Therefore there was no really large number of spurious votes and even if I disagree with peoples' reasoning, I don't take that into account when I close. I simply weigh if the argument is sound and supported by reasoning. It's like what the supreme court would refer to as the ideal reasonable person idea. If an informed reasonable person could make the argument, it's not spurious. Though I'll throw in a disclaimer here, I didn't do an extensive sock analysis here which I would have if I were closing and thought it would make a difference. - Taxman ^Talk 03:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Offering a reason and making a reasoned argument are not the same thing. One would conclude that an informed reasonable person would not make a logically meaningless argument such as "incorrect opinion" or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", and therefore a spurious argument such as this would indeed be discounted? --JayHenry (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm evidently non-neutral here, but I will say that I think some form of rationale in the close would have been helpful. There was a distinct lack of consensus, but I think a remark is always useful in such close and angst-ridden RfA's as this one. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not participate, but I did go back to the RFA to check if there was a rationale posted. I was kind of disappointed not to see one, but I equally did not expect there to be one. It might have been nice to have one there, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary in this case. Useight (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though many ask for a rationale, I personally would not have left a rationale for this RFA. It was fairly contentious and there were good and valid points on all sides. Consensus did not exist and it doesn't take a trained eye to see that. Andre (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was it closed as "no consensus", rather than "unsuccessful"? I'm not challenging the end result, though I must agree that a brief rationale would have been useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See the definitions here. "Unsuccessful" is for RFAs with sub-50% support. You may also be interested in the discussion here. Useight (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, I only asked that question for the sake of argument. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was what you were most likely doing. Useight (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd still be interested in thoughts on my question from earlier in the thread, about RfA's where there is substantial disruption from a single user. EdChem (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In closing this RfA I did not see the results warranted a closing statement. It was not a borderline case. There was not a consensus, and the arguments made in opposition were nearly all rational and valid. "No consensus" was not the "safe call," it was the only call.

You may not agree with or like the rationale opposing Everyking's opinion on Q5, but that opposition was valid nonetheless. That opinion bothered a number of people. When public opinion leans hard in one rational direction, it must rarely be ignored.

As for Ottava Rima's behavior, I feel it was over the top and disruptive, but in the end it is impossible to determine how many !opposes were solely because of Ottava Rima and how many !supports were in reaction to Ottava Rima. How Ottava Rima is dealt with in the future is not a decision for the Bureaucrats, however; it is a decision for the entire community.

I am happy to answer any questions. And I happy to add a closing statement to the RfA if there is a demand for it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the process makes it hard to see evidence of weighing the reasoning behind votes, I suppose, because there is so often no visible sign of it having been done. Some 'crats have always said that they weigh rationales, but since the closing outcome so rarely is at odds with the numerical indication my sense has always been that this is not actually common. Giving participants and observers a clearer picture of when judgment comes into play might be another use, in the general case, for more regular closing statements. As for "safe" -- well, this call was clearly the safe call, but I wasn't clear above and I'm sorry if I gave any offense; unsuccessful here is safe in the sense that it conforms to what most would expect from a traditional interpretation of the requests' closing state. I didn't mean to imply that it was closed as unsuccessful because that was seen as the safe call.

This traditional interpretation is what, I think, Jay is questioning. Most of the oppose votes weren't trolling or blatantly invalid in some other way; they were the opinions of reasonable people with reasonably held beliefs, although I and others think they were misunderstanding the answer that prompted so much opposition. As Kingturtle points out, normal practice is to count these votes as valid. Is that the right approach, though? If a crowd of people clearly misinterpret an answer, can a bureaucrat take note of that misunderstanding and disregard votes that follow from it? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason RfA lasts for 7 days is so that we can talk about these things during the RfA. Sometimes I'll explicitly say what it is I'm waiting to see from the supporters ... I did in this case. Even when people don't give an invitation, you can guess what it is that needs rebutting. (Even though some just deposit their vote and don't look again, there is a critical mass who do pay attention.) I didn't see much engagement of the opposition in this one, and as a result, no one was swayed. I think the crats take the position that it's the job of the community to pick admins, which implies it's not their the crats' job to fill in the gaps, to do things left undone in the RfA. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I pointed it out is the irony, Dan. Do you honestly not realize that what you just articulated is almost identical to the thoughtcrime for which Everyking was opposed? --JayHenry (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

When they close an RFA where their decision falls within the traditional given range, they are "counting noses." When they close an RFA where it does not, they are, "unjustly dismissing the will of the community." Dlohcierekim 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's always at the margins that this sort of dissent occurs, perhaps to state the obvious. Accordingly, those who are on the opposing side of the decision might find some reason to carp, because of course, their concerns have not been given appropriate weight. WP:RFB is arguably a higher hurdle to jump than WP:RfA, because of the higher responsibilities (and I do not say "powers" advisedly) involved. It behoves crats in such circumstances to explain their reasoning, and thus far, I have been impressed by the cogency of crats' arguments I've seen in borderline cases, and although there is no appeal, as such, against that decision, I've seen few admin approvals in such circumstances turn out to be an error of judgement- on the evidence available to the the closing crat at the time. As to failed RfAs in borderline cases, our problem is that there is no way we can know whether the crat's decision was correct or not; such cases are rare, because of the requirement for clear consensus to promote, and that is usually (at least numerically) beyond doubt. All this suggests to me that we are largely getting it right.</ramble> Rodhullandemu 00:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I'm not sure whether it's a manual message or a template, but the information you leave on someone's talk page when they're promoted to Sysop should probably contain a link to / information about #wikipedia-en-admins (#wikipedia-en-admins ^connect), as I only just discovered it more or less by accident after about 6 months as a Sysop. At least, that's my suggestion. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We have several flavors of congrats msgs. I'll add it to mine. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't mandatory information, and I don't think the IRC clique should become too intertwined with on-wiki stuff. It's normal for admins to find IRC by way of word of mouth when they have some contacts and experience. Andre (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am and will always be in favour of the deliberate separation of Wikipedia from IRC. I really do not consider information about wikipedia-en-admins to be entirely necessary information. Still, I'm willing to consider what others may have to say. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• #wikipedia-en-admins was created primarily as a working tool for contacting other administrators for assistance, and for that reason, I do continue to support IRC as a mechanism for quick communication between sysops. As I outline in my advice for new administrators, the first few weeks of sysopship often present issues one has never encountered before, and so new administrators would be well served with directions to join the channel—which, in almost all cases, is a useful and productive forum. Perhaps the concerns over the channel becoming a substitute for on-Wiki decision-making would be best tempered with the insertion into the bureaucrats' promotion messages of a reminder for the newly promoted sysops that the channel is a tool for garnering assistance and not for making decisions.
  I'm not a bureaucrat, but I have been using IRC for several years and am aware both of the positive and of the negative aspects of it; take my two pence as you will.
  AGK 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not a bad idea, but I'm going to leave my spartan boilerplate IRC-free. I just think it's a good idea to keep them separated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You think that's spartan? User:Andrevan/promote. Andre (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Apparently, mine is not spartan. Mine is... madness? Okay, that meme didn't work there nearly as well as I thought it would. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like someone needs a trip to the pit... I typically improvise each message instead of templating. Generally I mention New Admin School, and that's it. bibliomaniac15 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • AAAARHGHHHHHAndre (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)