Resolved

 – AD has handled it

I'm unsure how to handle this request. The home wiki is designated as pl:, there are accounts all over the place, but no SUL. The requester claims to hold the polish version (verification not yet sought or provided). I'm inclined to ask for verification and agree to the name change, but wanted to check with y'all in case I'm overlooking something. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They now created a SUL account with the en-wiki merged to the pl-wiki one. Unless they have previously created the Miky-account here, I do not see how this is possible. I have taken the liberty of asking them about this situation at the request. Regards SoWhy 09:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) looks like this was already done by AD [1] --Chris 09:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks folks. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there.

How do you (collectively) feel about this discussion where the idea of an RfA with an explicit request to the 'crats to have "wider latitude" and the possibility of declaring a marginal success is discussed? Would the 'crats be willing to indulge at all? Do you see problems with the format, or the forum? Would you rather we found some other solution? Do you have some other solution? Would you like fries with that?

Thoughts? — Coren ^(talk) 17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that, in general, any time someone who has been an active admin for a period of time loses adminship and then reapplies, the RFA is unsuccessful in part because people affected by the admin's blocks, deletions, page protections, and so on come out of the woodwork to issue oppose votes. On the other hand, the performance record of admins who have completed a successful RFA after losing adminship as the result of policy violations is considerably worse than average, though the sample size is small. Still, I would agree in general that a degree of discretion in discounting clearly retaliatory votes might be appropriate.

There has been a tradition of separation of powers between the Arbitration Committee and the, er, bureaucracy. I think that has been a good thing.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand what you meant about separation: did you mean that encouragement from ArbCom to use more discretion in specific RfAs would be an unwelcome intrusion, or that this particular suggestion properly maintains that separation? — Coren ^(talk) 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

1. If such latitude is ever granted to bureaucrats, please do not extend it toward me. At present I have no plans to run for RFA again, yet in principle this is a troublesome concept.
2. Having conominated Everyking for one of his RfAs, it would be an honor to have the opportunity to nominate him again.

Respectfully submitted, Durova^Charge! 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume this refers to this discussion. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone considering this would be wise to have a look at Carnildo's third RfA and particularly the threads on the talkpage that followed this one. Whilst letting people know in advance that bureaucrats will have "wide latitude" might overcome some of the issues with the Carnildo close, I think many of the comnments made then remain relevant. Given Everyking's comments on that RfA close: [2], [3], it would surprise me if this sort of an arrangement were acceptable to him. It seems to me that one of the deciding factors in RfAs for Everyking was the fact that ArbCom made it pretty clear that they opposed his candidature. If that is no longer the case, a statement to that effect may go a long way.... WJBscribe (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WJB, there were 4 current arbs (me, Wizardman, CHL and John Vandenberg) supporting in the last RFA, and one opposing, I would have thought that sent a message. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In discussions outside of the Committee pages, we do not represent the Committee with our votes. We vote as individuals. If the Committee is going to give a formal statement about an users we will make it clear by announcing it as such. Let's not confuse the two, please. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Some former Arbs like Neutrality supported as well, for what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I've noticed a few times we sometimes don't mark completed CHU requests as "done" before the next Crat takes on the case.

Sometimes, this is due to e/c and sometimes it's just because someone forgot (I've done it myself in the past).

This causes confusion, as the next Crat that comes along thinks the account requested exists (because it does - now).

The people at the very busy AIV board tackled this a long time ago by asking a Bot to scrape the block log and remove reports of blocked usernames and IPs, with a helpful explanatory edit summary. This makes me hopeful that a similar Bot could scrape the user rename log and mark "done by [name of Crat]" against any requests open at CHU that tally with the log.

It won't really help the edit conflicts, but it will help the forgetfuls. And it'll nicely remove the 2 second job of marking "done" from our groaning, excessive Crat workload (I jest, but every little helps).

Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added this functionality to Chris G Bot 3 [4]. --Chris 13:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gosh! Wasn't expecting that! Thanks. How often will it run, Chris? I did a namechange at 14:30 UTC and deliberately didn't amend CHU as a test. --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spotted at 15:00. So, is it every 30 mins - or on the hour perhaps? --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On the hour. I can make it run most often if you like. --Chris 08:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged my WP:CHUU work last night, but later an anon user removed my done and notdone tags. So when Dweller came upon the requests, he was confused to find them done but not tagged as such. Is there a way to get the bot to revert IP edits that remove done and not done tags? Kingturtle (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AF would be the most efficient way to track such things. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No rouge bot, unfortunately. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:128.174.251.48 has suddenly today been making bot-style edits to WP:CHUU. I reverted the first round of such edits, then warned the user. After it happened a second time though, I blocked the user for 48 hours - at least until we can figure out what is happening.

Is this a rogue bot? a known bot? or a human? Kingturtle (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The two users, X! and Chris G, whose bots help run CHU, do not live anywhere near where that IP geolocates to (Illinois). NW (Talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's User:ClueBot VI. That IP is www.acm.uiuc.edu, the proxy egon.acm.uiuc.edu uses to exit from the ACM subnet, where ClueBot VI runs. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Restarted bot so it is logged in. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked the IP; the block seems no longer necessary given Cobi's restart. Useight (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Done by Rlevse (talk · contribs · rights · renames)

Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3 4 was supposed to close about two hours ago, if someone has a minute to mosey on over to RfA and close it. Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that you seem to have passed RFA, one advice: Patience. You will need it as an admin ;-) SoWhy 20:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken :). Cool3 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors, including the bureaucrats, are volunteers. Usually this means we have additional obligations beyond the wiki. Often this results in a slight delay in the closing of an RFA. However, we have never yet forgotten anybody, and we are not about to start. It is therefore unnecessary to remind us, whether in "friendly" or nagging fashion, that an RFA is overdue. Thanks for your understanding. — Dan | talk 22:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the German Wikipedia's rule limiting the number of hats a person can wear, specifically that a person can only hold one of the positions of arb, crat, checkuser, or oversight, and while En.Wiki is not De.Wiki and we do have many capable crats who wear more than one hat, I was thinking it might be nice to determine when and where multiple hats are a good, bad, or neutral thing. See the chart I thought up below. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the "conflicts" listed above don't bother me, e.g. a bureaucrat who's also a BAG member adding the bot tag directly to a bot whose BRFA they approved seems perfectly fine. However, there are some which do: I think it's obvious that they shouldn't add the bot tag to their own bots, although I probably wouldn't object if the BRFA had already been closed independently as "approved", since that means its already been evaluated independently. The most important issues above have to do with "privileged knowledge": if the bureaucrat is in a position to have privileged knowledge of a user's previous negative conduct, they should probably not be closing that user's RFA, particularly if it's a borderline case. If it's not borderline, though, does it really make a difference? If an RFA is under 65%, no bureaucrat is going to promote, so does it really matter what other knowledge the bureaucrat is privy to?--Aervanath (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that on the whole this is a solution looking for a problem. The difficulty it poses is that when a bureaucrat has the opportunity to become active in another area (in my case OTRS or Arbcom), a policy officially disallowing "multiple hats" would have required me to resign as a bureaucrat, something I would have been reluctant to do. Since some of these areas are high churn (notably, OTRS), while bureaucrats tend to remain involved over a more lengthy period of time, this is problematic. I was not active as a bureaucrat while on Arbcom, and other bureaucrats who have served there have had the sense to behave in a similar fashion. With OTRS and oversight I don't really see a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I am not saying we should adopt de.wiki's one-hat policy, just that our crats shouldn't act with two hats in the same situation. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Enigmaman's 2nd RfA established that.
As for the chart, I think there are several stretches being made. For example, Vibber and Starling are 'crats pretty much in name only; they have the permissions simply because there could be a legitimate need for them to test the tools on something, and it's easier for them to just have the bit (though I'm a fan of extraneous flags like that being removed, especially when they are overshadowed by the sysadmin rights). The Functionary items seem strange, too; I honestly wouldn't have thought about the possibility of an RfX closure being based on mailing list content, but then again, I'm not particularly imaginative in that department. :) The Oversight item isn't a valid concern either (though see my previous comment about imagination), since we have very strict rules for what we can and cannot suppress; covering up userright logs would result in some well-deserved bitchslapping (or "userright removal" for those that prefer proper terms) by ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the oversight one is a bit of a stretch since there are strict rules on what can be oversighted. Also MBisanz, where did you get some of your information? Neither can I recall, nor find in the logs, a time where I hid userrights log actions or either of the items on the functionaries line. Given the nature of the situtations that may be involved, it's probably best not to give details anyway. In general though, listing people for something that there isn't even a consensus that they did anything wrong, but listing it as if they may have isn't in great taste. I suppose it's not a bad idea to encourage separation of the use of tools on a given case. Don't act on your own checkuser data if you can, etc. If you can't convince someone else that it is a good idea, perhaps it's not. Though that can only go so far, since if you tell someone the checkuser data supports X, they need to trust that and take the necessary action. In many cases involving the above userrights it's immaterial then who carries out the next action. - Taxman ^Talk 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant it as past and present occurrences of a crat wearing the hat in question. If a combination is so odd is has never (or almost never) occurred, like Arbcom Clerk, it doesn't need as much attention as a combination like Crat-Oversight or Crat-Admin which is rather common. No, as far as I know, the current crats haven't done any of the bad things listed above. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought that it's widespread consensus that noone should use one "hat" where they were previously involved in any other way, content- or "hat"-like? Is there really a need to codify that in any way? Regards SoWhy 08:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there are three exceptions I see to that statement. One, if a request is a non-decsion type request like an operator requested de-botting, a crat who had say blocked them in the past could fulfill the request. Two, if it is a privacy related rename, someone could wear two hats and do a rename+oversight or rename per mailing list request. Three, if they are a sysadmin or staff member they could do anything per WP:OFFICE and it probably would be ok (or at least we couldn't undo it). Other than that, standard commonsense COI principles would apply. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Picking one point, given the frequency of privacy-related work we do with renames, I think Oversight is an extremely useful tool for Crats and I'd welcome more of the users who are active with the Crat tools being trusted with it. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently posted some general thoughts on this topic on my talk page for those interested. I won't reproduce them here, as we can be more or less confident of the response from the users in a position to do anything about it. --JayHenry (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think this is a solution in search of a problem. Unless there is no other choice (and there is almost always another choice) privileged information from one role should not be used to affect a decision in another role. Also, I think that bureaucrat and oversight are complimentarycomplementary tools, especially as regards HideUser, and CU+OS is VERY complimentarycomplementary, as most of the name-attack sockfarms (of dozens and dozens of names) are found by the CUs and then the names have to be hidden and the revisions suppressed. -- Avi (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean complementary? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. -- Avi (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's no problem with one editor here having many different hats as long as they act in an open way and don't do things which may compromise their objectivity or move into the realm of COI. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While I believe that most bureaucrats who watchlist WP:BN also watchlist WP:RFA, I advertise a discussion for those who don't. Could a few bureaucrats pop themselves over to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Requesting bureaucrat opinion and give a nice conclusive decision, just so that the community doesn't have to bicker over this for months and months? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this is a massive tempest in a teapot (though I'll admit that TLDR comes to mind).
As far as removing !votes that are going to be disregarded (or weighed less), they are left there because, really, it doesn't matter that they are. [keep in mind I am talking in a very broad sense; I'm not talking about this particular instance] A somewhat inflamatory statement to one person could sound make perfect sense to another; if we squash those comments just because we dislike them, our (the bureaucrat's) sense of true consensus is hindered. If someone keeps saying something and nobody listens at all, it's pretty clear what the true consensus is (on that particular argument) and so it can be properly weighed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In general these comments generally don't affect the actual course of the RFA, so that would probably account for why we don't physically strike them. bibliomaniac15 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two advantages and one disadvantage that I can see. Firstly, you send a clear message (to that user and others) as to the sort of comments or rationales that are routinely ignored by crats, which helps to educate RfA contributors and hopefully improve the standard of future discussions. Secondly, you may help to defuse a situation where other contributors would (depending on one's point of view) badger or challenge the contributor, which often leads to unnecessary drama (unnecessary because the !vote will ultimately be ignored). The most likely disadvantage is the drama potential - that users may accuse bureaucrats of censorship, abuse of power, etc. It's my hope that the potential disadvantage can be outweighed by the advantages through clearly explaining the reasoning behind the strikeout when it is performed.

I've written this on the assumption that the comment being struck is uncontroversially non-constructive, for example because it's unrelated to the candidate. I don't think the striking of !votes during an RfA is constructive otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like the bureaucrats to consider collectively producing some guidelines for contributors at RfA. I feel that it would be helpful for contributors and 'crats to have a set of criteria (by analogy to WP:CSD, a deliberately limited set of cases in which deletion is always the right thing) defining those rationales which are universally considered unhelpful and which will always be ignored.

For example, it might be stated that bureaucrats will ignore positions which are...

• Nothing to do with the candidate (e.g. "Oppose Admins are stinky")
• Specific to the candidate, but based on Wiki-politics rather than candidate's suitability for adminship (e.g. "Support Candidate is a member of Wikiproject Foo. Down with WP:BAR!")
• Based on personal prejudice, whether on grounds of religion, gender, etc. (e.g. "Oppose Wikipedia has more than enough left-handed admins already")

The establishment of such guidelines will help to guide contributors at RfA, improve the quality of future contributions, and should help to reduce drama. The discussion, if not the standard itself, may also help to ensure that different crats aren't evaluating and weighting rationales in too divergent a fashion.

One final point. I'm not going to argue that this should be the basis of 'crats striking out or commenting on unsuitable rationales, much less unclear or controversial ones. I think the establishment of this guideline would neatly side-step that can o' worms. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a subject the 'crats can decide upon, this is something the larger community would have to weigh in on. While a 'crat can say, "I don't weigh !votes where people use the arguement prima facia" they cannot dictate the types of !votes people make. Any such discussion would have to be supported by the larger community. 'crats have extra responsibility/authority in closing RfA's, not in their operation/administration. While an RfA is open, a 'crat is no different from anybody else (although their input is often more respected---but that is true of many non-crats as well.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should encourage anyone to pounce on a comment during an ongoing RfA and say, "A-ha! This rationale is subject to speedy deletion!". I'm saying we should have a document that says, "Bureaucrats will always ignore too many admins as a rationale, so don't bother posting it, and if you do see it, don't bother replying." SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy, but if such a document/policy came about, it would need to stem from community consensus. If the community wants to encase certain criteria as policy/guideline, then the community can, but it's a community responsibility. Now an individual 'crat could say, "I don't weigh" specific types of objections. But I think that might lead to a slippery slope wherein crat candidates will be asked for such as list and it might lead to customized opposes knowing how 'crats think.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Plus consensus changes. Before Kurt finally left us, he started to win people over. There was a short period where others were !voting opposes due to self-noms. By cementing in rationales, you limit growth and diversity.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I personally don't understand why people get so het up about obviously off the wall !votes but clearly they do. However, judging the admissibly of any argument in an RfA is a slippery slope because it discourages other new reasons for !voting, especially where the rationale is close to the off-the-wall one but not quite there. Once a few specific rationale are banned, we'll have a list that will only keep growing and soon reasons that are borderline kosher today will find their way onto the list (there will always be at least one rationale that will drive everyone crazy!).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank God for a rational voice! --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A set rationale for judging RfA comments would not work because each RfA is different with a unique editor. Where some guidelines will work with a specific RfA, in another it will make no sense. We choose bureaucrats because we trust them to determine consensus correctly, so let's allow them to do their jobs. Malinaccier P. (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Per a motion by ArbCom: Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

As such, could a 'crat please reinstate Coffee's bit?

For the committee, Tiptoety ^talk 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Interested parties, your comments, corrections, and suggestions would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Renaming accounts with no contributions. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have alerted Biblio to this already, but in talking with him yesterday, he said he would not be around for the Fourth of July weekend, so I was unsure if he would be here for this discussion. NW (Talk) 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, at Mikaey's RfA, Bureaucrat bibliomaniac15 stuck Peter Damian's oppose with this rationale. Just very recently, Malleus Fatuorum reverted Biblio[5] and posted on the talk page of the RfA his reason for doing so[6]. I have my own personal feelings on this matter, but I ask that bureaucrats go and affirm or deny that any user can revert a bureaucrat's actions at RfA. NW (Talk) 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of RfAs, I leave in for the historical record any !votes and comments made (with a few exceptions), although I weigh them differently during closing. It is best IMHO not to strike out !votes and comments unless they are solely bigoted, excessively disruptive or made by socks or unqualified users. It is best to leave as much in the closed RfA as possible. I don't think there was anything wrong with reverting bibliomaniac's edit, however, I wish Malleus had been more tactful. Kingturtle (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious but not altogether surprising that my action is criticised as being tactless while the exact same action from a bureaucrat is considered to be acceptable. You guys clearly just make the rules up as you go along. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I take it you disagree with several of your (present and former) fellow bureaucrats would agreed that a bureaucrat striking votes was acceptable? (See the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2). NW (Talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Having reverted a 'crats striking of an !vote before, I have zero problem with doing so. We are talking about the BRD cycle here. Biblio is free to strike the !vote, but others are free to say, "there is no consensus to do so" and revert him. Generally, unless the account has been blocked, is a sock, or blatantly offensive in a vandlistic sense, nobody (crat or otherwise) should be striking !votes. At the same time, I fully encourage 'crats to use their discretion in considering the merits of an argument when closing an RfA... and have no problem with them saying, "I gave the John Smith's vote little or no credence because there is no community support for it."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Balloonman, in your reversion of Nichalap, several bureaucrats (WJBScribe and Taxman in particular) said your action was not appropriate. Quoting a few more bureaucrats below:

"I also agree that if a vote is going to be discounted, there is some benefit to the community to knowing that early as Frank mentioned. - Taxman Talk 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"Whilst it is true that bureaucrats enjoy no greater authority than any other editor in general, that isn't the case where RfA is concerned. It is specifically the job of bureaucrats to assess comments made in the course of an RfA and do have the authority to discount comments...WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"This practice is not new - Nichalp in particular has been striking comments he feels add nothing to the discussion with some time and it is a practice that has generally been approved of. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" (Note that WJBScribe disapproved of his Nichalap's actions, but acknowledged that Nichalap had the right to do it.)

"So, maybe I'd advise Nichalp not to strike votes like that, but as it's just a piece of friendly advice from one bureaucrat to another, he's well within his rights to ignore me and tell me where to go, what cliff to jump off, or somesuch. The absolute difference between striking a vote (what Nichalp did) and telling a user that you have no intention to pay any attention to the vote (what I'd do) to the RFA is minimal- either way the vote does not get counted...Deskana (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"Now to people who have not seen my work, I have indented several RFAs opposes in the past (please go back to 2005, I think you might find some examples there). So, it's nothing new to me, new perhaps to people who have not been around since then. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)"

NW (Talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, but I stand behind my actions, as did a number of other people. Nichalp overstepped his bounds in striking the !votes. A crats additional authority comes in closing the RfA and evaluating the consensus at the end of the RfA, they do not have extra administrative authority during the RfA. During the RfA they are free to ask questions, !vote, make comments, etc as anybody else, but they do not have extra authority. The difference between Biblio's actions here and Nichalp's is that Nichalp tried to apply his "crat action" and make it more authoritative, which was an abuse of position.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Lest people forget the other comments at the RFC, as I responded to NW on the rfa talk page, most people agreed Nichalp was wrong.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree here. As Deskana said, there are only minor differences between striking the vote, indenting the vote with a {{crat note}}, and discounting it entirely without telling anyone. Everyone knows that bureaucrats (theoretically) do the latter all the time. I personally see no difference between Biblio's and Nichalp's actions - only to whom they applied it to (which would make Biblio's action even more legitimate, considering Peter Damian's recent past) - and really don't see what the big fuss is with striking a vote. If a vote is discounted by the bureaucrats, would you not want to know now, rather than in 7 days (or more likely, never)? NW (Talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Nichalp struck votes without asking for clarification from well respected members of the community (without discussion), which lead to one admin relinquishing his bit because he felt it was a slap in the face. A better approach would have been to ask for clarification or elaboration. Everybody knows that Peter's !votes are going to be discounted, that is generally accepted, and discussed to death. The problem is that the community hasn't ruled that he can't make his !vote, and generally it takes a lot to reach the point where they are banned/blocked (although that leash is getting shorter.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Also, like I said when I undid Nichalp's striking of some !votes, striking !votes during an RfA by a crat is insulting and an affront. There is a HUGE difference between using one's discretion at the end of an RfA and striking an !vote during the RfA. The former is what we appoint crats to do, the later is not.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you not consider such opposes may be insulting too? Majorly talk 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To Balloonman.. 'blatantly offensive in a vandalistic sense'... you mean like announcing the intent to disrupt Wikipedia by opposing every RFA and then doing so? I have tried my best, but I am at a complete loss as to why we mollycoddle such people. → ROUX ₪ 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(ce)To be honest with you, I haven't looked at Peter's case very closely, but I do know that there are numerous discussions on this thread. He is our latest Kurt/DougsTech. If the community can't reach a consensus on his !vote, then the actions of individuals related to his actions are subject. IMO, Biblio's reverting Peter's !vote is no different than Majorly's reverting KMWeber/Dougstech... they can do so, but the until the community speaks on that particular case, the odds are somebody else will come along and undo it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Plus, I've seen both Deskana and EVula making posts telling an opposer essentially, "FYI as written it is likely this !vote will be discounted." Everybody knows that Kurt's prima facia, Dougs too many admins, and Peter's destroy the wiki !votes are going to be discounted.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If we know they are going to be discounted, what possible reason is there for allowing the vote to even be made? Majorly talk 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read what you just said again, slowly, and then think about what the implications of your position might possibly be. How do you know that a vote will be discounted for instance? How does anyone know? What are the criteria that you'd apply to the discounting of support votes? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the bureaucrats said they discounted Kurt and DougsTech's votes. That's how I know. Majorly talk 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A few of them, so far as I recall, made a general statement, not addressing any particular vote on any particular RfA. You have been similarly evasive, in not addressing my question about your criteria for striking support votes. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think support votes should be discounted unless they are irrelevant to the topic at hand (the user's suitability for adminship. The same for opposition. Majorly talk 22:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I get a few free lightyears I must try and drop in on your planet. Almost all support votes are "irrelevant to the topic at hand". They're mostly "He's my mate, so of course I support; thought he was an admin already." When I see someone striking out nonsense like that then I'll perhaps take your opinion more seriously than I do now. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for two people to disagree and live on the same planet. In any case, "thought he was one" is most certainly to do with the topic at hand. If you think someone is an admin already, and that they are doing a good job, that is most certainly an on-topic reason for supporting. The buddy-type votes, I can only agree with you, but I consider it only a serious issue when someone does it consistently, or in a disruptive manner. Normally it doesn't make any difference. For example, I know you oppose quite a bit, but I normally find your opposes thoughtful and persuasive. When someone (like Peter) goes on an opposing "spree", using the same copy and pasted "rationale", it's clear very little, if any, thought has gone into it. You could very well argue people go on supporting sprees. I don't like them either, and brought it up with an editor who I saw doing it. Personally though, I consider supporting the default stance on an RFA, and opposition should only happen if absolutely needed. Remember each oppose requires three supports to make up for it. So for every dumb oppose, there could easily be three dumb supports. That's why there's a lot of people upset with these thoughtless opposes – they are dig at the person, and are unnecessary. At least with a thoughtless support vote they are (normally) done in good faith and don't demoralise the candidate needlessly. Majorly talk 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Because consensus can change and variants might be derived from them. In this case, there has been several discussions related to Peter, but in none of them has the notion of striking his !vote been supported. I'm not saying if that is right or wrong, but until the community reaches the point where they want to cut him off, then he has the right to vote, even if it is in a manner that nobody respects.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we probably broadly agree, just not on the details, or their implementation. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Biblio (or any crat, for that matter) striking/indenting !votes, but realistically it does seem a tad pointless. The 'crats could just as easily ignore a vote upon closing the discussion; the end result is the same, with far less drama. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that if I saw a Crat strike a vote or respond to a vote in any kind of dismissive manner and then close an RfA, I would immediately seek their removal via either RfC or ArbCom. The CoI standards in terms of using rights and participating in an event except in terms of vandalism (or sock puppetry) would be unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any bureaucrat would do that, but what you're saying is a given really. Majorly talk 23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a question for you then. Say a user adds a nonsensical rationale in an RfA. The community generally asks us bcrats to use our discretion when closing RfA's and in that case that rationale should add little or no weight to the RfA, and that is typically what bcrats would do in closing an RfA with that type of rationale. What you are saying is that you would not only prefer not to know ahead of time if a bcrat would not put much weight behind a given rationale, but that you would actively seek sanctions against them for pointing out ahead of time that there is a case that they would use their discretion to not consider a given rationale as adding much weight to the consensus. So what about pointing that out makes it participating in the RfA and automatically a COI? - Taxman ^Talk 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava and Majorly, I don't think I understand. Surely the authority by which a bureaucrat can strike votes (if he has any such authority, which is what we're arguing about) is the same as the authority by which he can close RFAs? Hence to do both on the same RFA is in no way a conflict of interest; it's simply doing two parts of the same job. The COI problem arises only when a bureaucrat votes in and closes an RFA, i.e. acts both as a regular old user and as a bureaucrat. — Dan | talk 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a very clear and important difference. By striking vote during an RfA a bureaucrat is influencing the course of an ongoing election. For that same bureaucrat to then decide the result of that election poses obvious dangers. But what if an independent bureaucrat who closes the RfA doesn't agree that the struck-through vote really should be ignored? Whichever way you cut it, bureaucrats striking votes is a very, very, bad idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the new topic heading, but I would like this to be a combined thought on both issues above:striking !votes and discounting !vote guidelines. First let me preface by saying this solely my own opinion, nothing official, and I am not coming to call anyone else's actions into askance. The thirty-some-odd bureaucrats are all individual people (we are all individuals) and have their own ways of approaching every situation. There is no crat-bot; there are people, and there must be an understanding that two people may come to different decisions. Be that as it may, the following is my understanding, although, as always, I am open to conversation, intellectual debate, and reserve the right to be swayed by superior arguments.

RfX's are, at there core, the opportunity for editors to comment on the judgment and trustworthiness of the individual under discussion. Is there a consensus that the candidate will uphold wikipedia policy and guidelines where they exist, and will make reasoned decisions where policy and guideline is vague (now where have y'all heard that before). Commentators have the opportunity to voice their opinions, and attempt to sway or be swayed by the discussions, that currently take the form of support, oppose, and neutral lists and their associated back-and-forths. In my opinion, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that the majority of respondents are of perceptive enough to recognize weaker arguments and when making their own internal judgment, afford them the appropriate weight. As such, I would personally prefer not to strike such votes. For what it is worth, if someone thinks that their are too many admins it is their prerogative to say so. I--the editor/!voter--may disagree and think that their are not enough and will not be influenced by such a vote. I would hope, and counsel, that everyone be proactive with their opinions and not reactive. Just because editor A automatically opposes does not mean that editor B should mechanically support. We are all individuals .

That regards the individual comments and opinions that are listed at the RfX. When the alloted time has expired, the bureaucrat in question has to make a decision--what is the consensus. Consensus is not solely a matter of the number of votes; although quite often they are highly correlated. Thankfully, most of the time, their is a clear consensus, or clear lack thereof, and each individual argument's strengths or weakness becomes subsumed into the overall pattern, obviating the need for a case by case analysis. For example, I am uncertain anyone would argue that an RfA closing 5/86/4, where each and every oppose was "too many admins", should be passed due to the "weakness" of the opposes. Consensus, however, also includes the trend of the discussions, the ebb-and-flow as it were, the actual arguments themselves and their relative "strength" for lack of a better term one versus the other. It is in those situations, where the bureaucrats need to determine if a consensus exists, that argument relativity and opinion shifting plays a role. And since each of those cases are unique, there is no way to create a general guideline. The cases where the existence of consensus needs to be decided upon by the bureaucrats requires that each opinion be looked at on a chronological and substantive basis, to see if a "community voice" can be heard over the din. To say that certain opinions should be ipso facto discounted would prevent the bureaucrat from using all available information. Bureaucrats are elected to have the opportunity, when necessary, use their judgment about the relative merits of each RfX; let them exercise it as efficiently and flexibly as possible.

That is not to say certain opinions should not be automatically discarded: the ones that are against wikipedia policy and guideline such as sockpuppets of banned users, IPs (in the support/oppose section), personal attacks, vandalism, etc. should be removed. But, in my opinion, !votes which relate more to the process or project than the candidate should not be struck, and, when necessary, should be given the appropriate relative weight vis-a-vis the entire discussion, which may well be zero or close to it. Again, in the extreme case where the community as a whole felt that there were too many admins, and wanted no more despite the obvious qualities of the candidate, should said candidate be given the bit regardless? I would think not. But where the community wants more admins, a support directed specifically to the candidate and his or her qualities would be a stronger identifier of consensus than a vague oppose that was more a lament about the project than specific to the candidate. The volume of opinions is also a factor, as 4 directed supports are not enough to overwhelm 73 vague oppositions: in that case the consensus is that the community does not want another admin at this time. So, (and I apologize for the redundancy) this demonstrates, that there are enough factors in the decision to preclude any guidelines relating to opinion relevancy outside of the outright vandalistic type in the RfX process. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

well said---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A voice of sanity. So does that mean that I'm not going to be blocked for reverting bibliomaniac earlier today? To be honest I'm not bothered either way, I'd just like to know. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you were going to be blocked, it would have happened already. To do so now would be pointless and punitive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I know how MF will respond to this, let me do so... that never stopped some admins ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting too much sleep currently, so I'm a bit fuzzy-headed, but that seems a fair statement of my take on the issue, too. --Dweller (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Avi. I think you presented the process very clearly. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well-put, aside from the tl;dr aspect. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Would it be useful to see if there is consensus among bureaucrats to take a consistent stance on these issues or should the current practice of individual discretion be maintained?  Skomorokh  16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've largely felt the same way, that poorly reasoned arguments don't sway an Rfx much and can largely be ignored. There is a bit of a problem however where poorly reasoned arguments repeated more often than the better reasoning refuting them can still sway people. It's like the vaccination issue. There really is an extraordinary lack of evidence of harm from vaccines and an extraordinary amount of evidence of the good that they do that vastly outweighs any claimed harm. But the harm claims are loudly repeated enough that increasingly people believe them (or doubt the real facts) despite the weakness of the claims. So my general preference as I have stated before is that anything short of abusive comments, sockpuppets, etc, should be allowed to stand, not be struck or removed, but should simply be pointed out. For example a user showing up to RfA on their 2nd edit shouldn't have their comments struck, but it is helpful to have that fact pointed out so people can take it into account. Similarly for really bad arguments, people can simply point out that they are widely considered to be very poor arguments. I also tend to go for the angle that drama rarely helps improve articles, so the less drama angle is usually better for the project. Striking comments usually leads to drama, and probably isn't worth it. - Taxman ^Talk 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would even go so far as to say that it isn't the 'crats role to do so... one of the things that I think the community does a good job at is pointing out bad/weak arguments. If the argument is really bad, then somebody will make that observation.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Where's the discussion about the new templates and stuff on CHU? I currently don't get long periods onwiki, so haven't the time to search for it... --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, what happened to the clerk bots? (I've been inactive at CHU for a spell as well; yeesh) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What new templates and stuff are you referring to exactly? Regards SoWhy 20:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means the ones that pop up when you edit the page. -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the new templates that pop up when editing. Where's the discussion? I can't even work out who did it and when because the nested transcluded subpages are too tricksy for my limited brain and limited time onwiki just now. --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

People seem to be requesting the opinions of more 'crats at Wikipedia talk:Rfa#Unexplained opposes. hmwithτ 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained my views above at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Guidelines and strikings and !votes, oh my, is that what you were looking for? -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A number of Crat opinions are there. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw a few comments, but it seems people were looking for a straight answer on how 'crats interpret totally unexplained opposes and even unexplained supports in general. Perhaps, reading through the mess, I missed some good comments. Forgive me if so. :) hmwithτ 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the mess (and I agree my edits can charitably be called a mess; actually they're worse :D ) the upshot, at least in my opinion, is that not only is there no straight answer, but there can be no straight answer, for each RfA is unique and the same edit which may be given very little weight in one candidacy may be given more in another, as consensus is not only composed of individual edits, but also the relations between the various edits, the trends of opinions, and the back-and-forth discussions to name a few things. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is true. For the record, I wasn't calling your comments a mess. I was referring to WT:RFA. I think almost everyone can agree that page is usually a mess. :) hmwithτ 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually ? Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Overdue RfB? It was just transcluded tonight? -- Avi (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. (X! · talk)  · @506  ·  11:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an italian bureaucrat, user:GdaBaskerville asked me to help him arranging his account: he created also user:Giovanni Camporeale, now user Giovanni_Camporeale@en.wiki should be renamed into a temporary name, then GdaBaskerville@en.wiki should be renamed into Giovanni_Camporeale and finally the old Giovanni Camporeale into GdaBaskerville. Both the accounts are owned by the same user who have the full access. So I ask for the way he can do the request in the right way, thanks. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason he has two accounts? On English wikipedia, without an acceptable reason, we usually only allow one account per editor. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and in specific Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On it.wiki we allow declarate socks but he wants to use only one of them, he registred two account because he didn't know that an account can be renamed, now he wants his most important edits (that he made with GdaBaskerville account) be under his new username: Giovanni Camporeale. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you accept a request in these terms? --Vituzzu (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is OK, provided that the secondary account be retired and the primary account be the only one used going forward. Any other bureaucrats, clerks, or interested parties think otherwise? -- Avi (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please have the user retire the User:GdaBaskerville account. -- Avi (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this account User:GdaBaskerville be closed and its user and talk pages be redirected to my new account User:Giovanni Camporeale. Thank you. --GdaBaskerville (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've observed at least some canvassing (or close to it) at this RfA. Feel free to e-mail me for evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot disclose the evidence publically, please forward it to wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am looking into this issue with Julian. There are some awkward legal and privacy issues which necessitate an offwiki approach. Julian and I are online at different times of day currently, which is making communication tediously drawn-out but it can't be helped. If I have anything to report, I will, working creatively within any strictures I encounter, and minimising drama. I can currently give no further detail than that and I'd appreciate your patience with this. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Having explored this, the RfA is fine to proceed to a normal close without any concern by the closing Crat. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi folks. Just thought I'd drop you a note about some issues that may be headed your way. At AN/I, several threads start here which involve a multitude of issues, including ones that you folks have already worked on. Content, blocks, bans, admin. conduct, and a whole conglomeration of things that you'll likely be seeing in the future. I'm sure some of you are aware of many of these things, but for those of you who don't keep close tabs on the AN boards I thought you might want to start your research. I hope I'm not out of line for posting here - just trying to keep folks from being blind-sided. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  07:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I'm suffering from TLDR - are there issues in there specifically relevant to Crats? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nothing specific to you guys yet. It's tough to follow given the multiple forks, twists & turns, and volume of participants. I think that Ancient Egyptian race controversy may be a focal point. Perhaps it's just a tempest in a teacup, but even the recent blocks and bans seem to be objectionable to some; in the sense that they aren't always applied equally. It seems to have quieted down over the last few hours, so hopefully it's simply a fire that's now died out. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'm not familiar with many of the issues, or even many of the participants. Perhaps I saw more to it than there actually is. — Ched :  ?  15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's something there that relates to bots, username changes, or RfA/RfB, then it's not something that will come to the bureaucrats, unless you're calling on a 'crat as an outside WP:UNINVOLVED admin to evaluate consensus (in which case, any admin or experienced user can do it).--Aervanath (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course Aevanath. I guess it was just "outside the box thinking" (or rather hoping) that an "unofficial" solution could be found. Crats tend to have exceptional clue, along with community trust - so I thought perhaps something in-between the AN/I sideshow and the ArbCom "official channels" might find a solution in sorting out the whole thing. Thanks anyways for looking guys, I'll tag as resolved. — Ched :  ?  03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, bureaucrats do not close RfX's in which they have participated. What about participating in a bureaucrat discussion? I raise this now as although there is plenty of time left, Julian's RfB may end up in the "gray" zone and there have been a number of bureaucrats, myself included, who have stated their support or opposition. I would like to have the following three cases discussed:

1. Participation in the discussion by a bureaucrat who opined in the RfX
2. Closure of an RfX that required a bureaucratic discussion where the consensus of bureaucrats is clear
3. Closure of an RfX that required a bureaucratic discussion where the consensus of bureaucrats is not clear

My personal opinions are:

1. I think that as a bureaucrat discussion is open for all to see, and no bits are being flipped and rights given during the discussion, there should not be an issue with a bureaucrat giving his or her opinion as to the what consensus was shown, if any, in an RfX in which they had participated. Stating an opinion about the candidate should not forbid the bureaucrat from discussing, in public, the consensus, and engaging in weighing the arguments pro and con. The concern that has the bureaucrats recuse from closing a discussion in which they have participated are that they may be subconsciously affected by their opinion and not the community's consensus. Here, it is solely a discussion as to how to read the community, which is further removed.
2. While for propriety's sake I believe this should be avoided, if it was done, I do not see this as a violation of trust, as they would only be implementing the collective discussion of the bureaucrats and not using their "own" judgment, as it were.
3. This should not be done by a bureaucrat who participated in the RfX for the same reason as to why they should not close such candidacies.

-- Avi (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that if you !Voted, you should not close the RFx nor particpate in any "crat chat" discussion pertaining thereto. On the other hand, I feel if all you did was make a comment in response to a !Vote (such as asking what someone meant or clarify a point that was brought up) you could participate in said chat or close the RFx. So, to me, if you by "opined" you mean !Voted, I'd say said crat should not participate in any of your scenarios. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This despite the fact that the decision is not in the hands of the bureaucrat who opined and his or her opinion of the consensus is open for all, bureaucrat and non-bureaucrat alike, to see and identify if the arguments are logical and valid or not? -- Avi (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be like an arb particpating in an RFC on an admin's conduct and then voting on a subsequent arb case on that admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, I think there is a difference, as in the arb case, the arb is being asked to use their judgment about the person and actions of the admin; in a bureaucratic discussion, the 'crats are asked to discuss the community's response--not the candidate themselves. -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it: I don't care who closes the RFA/B, or who participates in any discussion. As long as they close it right, according to the consensus of the "vote/discussion", there is no issue for me. I wouldn't care if a bureaucrat closed the RFA of their own nominee, as long as they did it correctly and not against the wishes of the consensus developed. Majorly talk 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not close the RFx of my own nominee nor of one I !Voted in, not even an obvious case. Certainly not a gray area case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, but I'm saying I don't mind as long as it's done according to what the community wanted. I think bureaucrats have their hands tied enough as it is. Majorly talk 02:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's some wiggle room here, but I try to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. We all make mistakes, we're all human, but I simply try to avoid "asking for trouble" so to speak. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety, which is why I opened the discussion very early in Julian's RfB :) -- Avi (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was sorted out a long time ago. Bureaucrats who !vote in an RfX do not participate in that RfX's closure or closure discussion. There are no ifs, ands or buts. Kingturtle (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the archives of that discussion, then, please? I'd like to see it, and, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, it may be prudent to revisit it and get opinions from the community again. -- Avi (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Total agreement with Kingturtle. I'm not sure if there is an actual archived discussion about it; it seems pretty straight forward. I'd be inclined not to bother asking the community, not because I don't want their opinion, but because I can't honestly fathom them being comfortable with a biased bureaucrat not recusing themselves (for example, I recused myself from Mazca's RfA because he is a friend I've known for years and I co-nommed [the latter because of the former], and I'll recuse myself again from any closure discussion for Julian's current RfB). However, it couldn't hurt to ask... EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So you do not see a difference between opining on the candidate and opining on the community's response, in an open forum? -- Avi (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a difference, but 'crats that have participated are likely to be somewhat biased. Obviously, if it were a life or death situation, I think a bureaucrat could purge any bias from their decision, but thankfully RfXs are rarely life or death situations. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat for historical reference, where User:Rdsmith4 was both a supporter of the RfA as well as a key bureaucrat in the discussion itself. Not saying that it was a good idea; just that bureaucrats haven't always seen the necessity to recuse themselves. NW (Talk) 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Warofdreams participated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes/Bureaucrat chat despite being support #40 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes. -- Avi (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think that Avi's initial summation is correct: a bureaucrat should not be closing an RfX they've commented in, no matter what, but they can participate in the crat chat. However, I think they should mention in the crat chat that they've taken part in the RfX; I know there's already a public record that they've participated, but it would be best if it's clear just from reading the crat chat that they did, and I think that would still preserve the impression of crat impartiality; complete recusal from the crat chat isn't necessary.--Aervanath (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• If I was a bureaucrat, and I opined (voted) in an RfX, I would not comment in any crat chat that may follow. That said, I would only recuse myself because of my own personal views on the issue, not because I think that it would be unambiguously incorrect for a crat to opine in an RfX and comment on an ensuing crat chat. Opining on and then closing the same RfA is another matter, and I would never support crats doing that, except possibly if the RfA was obviously passing (e.g. 110/0/3) and was like 18 hours overdue or something. Pretty much, I feel that Rlevse sums it up well: there is no point in giving people an opportunity to accuse you of bias if you don't need to. Once again speaking hypothetically, if the other crats felt my opinion was desirable, they could/would ask me on the crat chat page or my talk page. If the other crats were absolutely deadlocked, I would probably say on the chat page what I thought, but I would not "vote" on the outcome or something similar, if it came to that. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In my RfB, I committed to not closing a RfX I made a significant contribution to, except under extraordinary circumstances (and that'd be pretty much never). Since passing RfB I therefore rarely make a significant contribution to RfX discussions in case I'm needed to close them.

I think a Crat chat is slightly different - when one is next needed, I'd like the widest possible participation by us - those who made significant contributions can and should state that up front. I would like to think that any Crat contributions to Crat chat would be about assessment of the RfX, rather than about the candidate's merits and I'd trust my colleagues to be able to separate the two. Avoiding closure of the RfX is because of the unilateral nature of it, and the obvious problem this can present. A Crat chat is collegiate, which negates this danger. And (say) four voices assessing something tricky are better than (say) two.

If consensus were to form that Crats should not participate in Crat chats where they have made significant contributions, I'd be urging my colleagues never to participate significantly in RfX. Which would be a shame. --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more about avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest. While I agree that the crat chat as you describe it would be more about assessing the consensus of the discussion, if you have participated in that discussion your further participation in assessing the outcome of that discussion would be seen as a conflict of interest. This would only be in cases where you voiced one of the three opinions (Support, Oppose, Neutral), not if you asked for clarifications, or tagged likely SPAs. If you have participated in the discussion itself (not just asked for clarification), then you shouldn't be closing the discussion or participating in the assessment of the discussion prior to that closing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem that Avi raised here will only arise if at almost all active crats had !voted on the RfX in question because then it becomes a simple logistics problem. If only 1 or 2 crats remain who have not !voted, there will be noone to have a crat chat with, thus the crat who will have to close this RfX will not be able to consult anyone, which cannot be the desired outcome of a "no participation at all"-rule. As such, I think, similar to Dweller above, that participation in a crat chat should be allowed even if the crat in question has !voted on the RfX in those cases where otherwise there would simply be not enough crats to have a productive crat chat. After all, discounting the inactive ones, there is only 14 crats active (far too few imho), so it's quite realistic that 12 of them !voted in that particular RfX, especially if it's one where the candidate is controversial or well-liked. And 2 crats simply cannot have a "crat chat" in the sense of having a wider discussion about the closing and we cannot want that. So I think if say 75% of active crats participated on an RfX, we should make an exception to the rule that someone who participated cannot be involved in closing the RfX. But only then, because the concerns raised above are very valid after all. Regards SoWhy 10:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In a case like that, perhaps, but I still think it should be avoided if at all possible. If that were to happen, then the ones who did !vote in the RfA should definitely be completely up front about things and double and triple check anything they write for possible bias. I trust all of them to do that, but there are plenty of people here who are looking for even the slightest misstep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as there is enough crats who have not participated, there should be no such considerations at all. Just in those cases where there aren't, we need to be able to have such a discussion taking place without people "revolting". Regards SoWhy 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the past, it's been accepted that bureaucrats who have commented in an Rfx can take part in a bureaucrat discussion, but they are expected to state that they have commented - it's in the information I put together some time ago, at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. At the moment, there are plenty of active bureaucrats, so it's unlikely to cause difficulties if any who have participated recuse themselves, but if we ever return to a situation where only a small number of bureaucrats are active, such a policy could lead to chats which have few participants, who may not be the most involved. Warofdreams talk 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not as active as I would like to be but I do catch cross wiki spammers via Commons & Meta from time to time. I had sysop rights & dropped them a while back - I would make some use of them again I guess. Probably worth bearing in mind that such abuse is often in user: namespace so if deletions there bother folk....

AFAIK I was of "good standing" (of course it depends who you ask!).

Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, our speedy criterion G11 covers User: namespace spam as well, so there should be no bothering, should there? Anyway, (preemptively at the moment) welcome back :-) Regards SoWhy 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.... but it doesn't always get deleted..... :) & thanks Avi (ec) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• •  Done - Welcome back, Herby! -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi—just a quick question. I would be interested to know if any bureaucrats (who are still able to do so) are potentially going to consider closing Juliancolton's RfB as successful if it ends up having a percentage less than the traditional ~90%. I wouldn't normally think to ask, but this RfA was just successful at 67.8%, which is below the general 70% rule. I know that I didn't oppose the RfA because I didn't imagine it could possibly be closed as successful, and so my oppose vote would be unnecessary. I know it may not be a fair question, but I'd like to have a bit of heads up if such a closure may be coming our way again. Thanks! ÷seresin 09:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's far too soon to speculate on how this RFB will be closed and I would advice everyone to cast their !votes regardless of how it might seem the RfX is going. Dave's RFA is an example that no predictions can and should be made based on percentage and numbers alone but we should not make any deductions from this RfA to Julian's RFB. Or, to allow me to be bold and answer your question without being a crat: Closures that are not fitting the traditional support % examples can always occur and the crats will never close something as unsuccessful or successful based on such % alone, so you should not worry about it but cast your !vote anyway regardless of such concerns.

To phrase it another way: If the crats told you they would or would not close it as successful, would that really make a difference for what you think about whether Julian should be granted cratship? I don't think it would or indeed should, which makes the question moot. Regards SoWhy 09:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As a participant, I may not be entirely impartial here, but I would advise everyone to participate based on the candidate and not the percentage. How the RfB is going shouldn't really be material to a person's opinion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy and Anonymous Dissident have given the correct answer. If you have any opinion on a candidate's suitability for adminship or bureaucratship, say so and say why, regardless which direction you think it's going. (It's your duty as a wiki-citizen, or something like that.) Also, there have been a number of successful sub-70% RFAs, which makes voting based on a guess at the outcome even more difficult. An RFA closed at 67.8% has not been as sure to fail as you suggest for a long time now. (However, RFB closing conventions have tended to change more slowly than those of RFA - to date, I don't think we have had any successful sub-90% RFBs, though someone with a better historical memory than I is welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken.) — Dan | talk 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there have actually been three, including on below 80%. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3 closed at 78/12/2 in July 2007, which is 87.67% support. Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay closed at 143/16/4, which is 89.94% (ok so that's just barely below 90%). Finally, way back in 2004 Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Cimon avaro closed at 11/3/2 which comes out to a (shockingly) low 78.57%. Cool3 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Andre's has only 86,6% support and is the RFB with the lowest support ratio so far (not counting those from way back like Cimon avaro). Regards SoWhy 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite right my math seems to have been wrong. 86.7% if we round though :). Cool3 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact, there was one more sub 90% "back in the day", the very first one to use the current format Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ed Poor passed at 28/4/2 which amounts to 87.5%. So of the 34 (I believe I counted right) RfBs since the initial mailing list selection, 4 passed with less than 90% support (11.8%), which is to say that it's really not that uncommon. Cool3 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought of RFB as >90% = almost sure pass, and >85% = maybe. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty rough calculation. There is a similar one for RfAs, >80% = pretty sure pass, >70% maybe and still Dan's aforementioned close of Dave's RFA shows us that success is always possible outside those numbers; so we should abandon such calculations and just discuss on the merits of a candidate. Regards SoWhy 17:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I don't think Cimon avaro's candidacy can be considered a reasonable outlier, or can be discussed to that end. There were 16 participants; percentages really don't come into it. The candidacy took place at a very early time in RfB history, and the atmosphere and standards are completely different today. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've put together hard data on all of the RfBs thus far to determine where consensus is now. Of course, the immediate fact that jumps out to anyone who glances through RfB is that it just doesn't happen much anymore. There have been 34 successful RfBs (not including those on the mailing list) since the beginning of the project. 16 of them, roughly half, occurred in 2004, and only 5 (14.7%0 occurred within the last 12 months. Thus, it is in fact rather difficult to talk in a definite sense about where the "modern" line falls.

The conclusion from this data is that the crats do act roughly according to <90% is successful with a discretion zone of 85-90%. There is the one notable anomaly, of a successful RfA in the 75-80% range being successful. It was a long time ago (18 March 2004) and as stated above, it was also very low participation. I will leave you as to your own conclusions about whether or not that was a valid close and whether it has any applicability to today. Cool3 (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the last attempt to find a community consensus for the requirements of a successful RfB was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar. At the time, I attempted to distill what could be taken from the comments made on that page to a short statement to the effect that: "Whilst RfB is not a vote, it is generally expected that RfBs with more than 90% will be successful, whereas those with less than 80% will not be. Bureaucrats should assess the level of consensus bearing in mind the high levels of community trust expected for appointment." That formulation found some support on the talkpage. WJBscribe (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Barring any changes that I am unaware of, this is true to this day. Obviously, we can't keep everyone happy, but what Will has said above seems to be what the majority of people agree is acceptable. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I like to view it in terms of Support:Oppose ratios. A percentage of 90% is a 9:1 ratio. A percentage of 80 is a 4:1 ratio. I agree that <4:1 ratio is in general not accepted and >9:1 is in general a no-brainer, and in between is where discussion and discretion take hold. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of percentages. Dave's RfA below proves that people are too hung up on raw numbers IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was unfortunate timing on archiving the discussion. Though I certainly have an opinion, I didn't make a single comment here because I was waiting to hear the explanation. When I went to sleep, Dan hadn't replied yet, and when I woke up, the discussion was archived. BN isn't ANI; a thread remaining open here isn't going to draw attention away from other pressing issues. Please let people continue discussion when they have things to say. If there's drama in the meantime, it's always possible to ignore it. Dekimasuよ! 00:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting for crat attention that SirFozzie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who took an extended wikibreak and cvoluntarily let go of the tools has returned, and says he's ready to take up the mop again.

• SirFozzie (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Desysop request - thread diff
• Resysop request

I'm not aware of any reason this would be considered other than routine, but feel free to check if there is any doubt. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• •  Done Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Is is possible for you bureacrats to make the user name Huib free again, so I can register it. I'm using the name Huib in my sig and the only one not free is on the English Wikipedia.

I do not wish a rename, there have been some complains for en.wiki users that my sig is confusing, so I'm going to make redirect where I'm active, don't want to keep +200 crats or stewards busy with my rename request so this is the second best option.

Best regards, Abigor (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to create another account, (for example, User:Abigor (temp)), and make a request at WP:CHUU. SUL (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, making a new account isn't needed. All Abigor needs to do is post on CHUU asking to usurp the account Huib by having it moved out of the way so it can be registered. There is no need to create another account to do that. But I don't see why any of it is needed since Huib doesn't appear in Abigor's signature at all. - Taxman ^Talk 15:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It does on other wikis, (for example, see the first vote on this page: Commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Alchemica) and there have been calls for Abigor to change to that ID or stop signing that way in discussion (for example, see the end of this discussion: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#deletionist_admin) so that may be why Abigor is asking this here. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading this right, a simple WP:CHUU request will work just fine. Kingturtle (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. I just was answering the question from Taxman as to 'why'... ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)y

I have placed a request here I hope this is the correct way of doing this.

@ Taxman: Since I'm almost not active here I don't use the name Huib here in my sig, on all projects where I'm active I use Huib just like Lar told :)

Thank you very much for your input. Abigor (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how to proceed, first a bureacurat Lar tells me to go to a page and make a request, another bureaucrat tells me not done. What is needed to get this done? Abigor (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record I am not a 'crat on en:wp. Just a bystander. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was marked as "not done" because it was formatted incorrectly. Make a new request with Huib as your target username and Abigor as your Current username. Kingturtle (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Abigor doesn't want to be renamed to Huib. He wants the Huib account renamed to something else so he can register it. SUL (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

that's what I wanted, with Puppy, I was advised to make PuppyTEMP and rename that to Puppy.... although I was told later still that might not have been necessary, although it does seem to be a workable solution to the technical issues. Might that work for Abigor/Huib? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been raised many a time, both on specific RfA's, on WT:RFA, and now with the recent closure of Dave's RfA. At the risk of being pelted with rotten fruit, I would like to make a few points, and then have the other bureaucrats respond.

Firstly, I think it is clear that Dan(Rdsmith) did nothing outside of wikipedia policy and guideline. There are fewer than thirty people who have survived the painful and emotionally draining gauntlet that is RfB. Why so few? Is it because of changing usernames or flagging bots? I don't think so. The reason why the bureaucrat job is so gosh-d@rn painful to achieve is that there are rare occasions when the promotion of a potential candidate comes down to one person's decision as to how to weight the discussion at the RfX. The community demands a super-super-super majority of itself to promote a bureaucrat for those rare times when that judgment has to be rendered. OF COURSE there are going to be people who strongly disagree with that judgment; if the RfX was so simple, we wouldn't need the bureaucrat to be making the decision in the first place. We elect our bureaucrats with the knowledge that one day they are going to make a difficult decision, and we trust them to make the best decision they can. And guess what, different bureaucrats will make different decisions; we're people, not bots. As long as the decision was made rationally, not out-of-line with policy and guideline, and can be explained, I do not think there is anything wrong with the decision.

Now that that is said, I think that there needs to be a clarification about how bureaucrats approach certain kinds of oppose votes. Our job, as bureaucrats, is to crystallize the community's discussion into a consensus, or rule that none exists. There are many types of opposition. They range from those that are automatically discounted (banned users) to well-crafted statements capable of swaying the opinion of a large percentage of respondents. Part of the judgment, when necessary, of the bureaucrat is to apply some subjective, yes subjective - we are not bots, weight to these oppositions and supports and decide accordingly.

In the past, there was the opinion that "adminship is no big deal". How true this is today is a separate question, but the philosophy exists. Relatedly, historically, there was the overall feeling that admins are meant to be janitors (hence the fabled "mop"), people who sweep up after vandals and fix cut-and-paste moves, and close AfD's, etc. Please read the very first paragraphs of Wikipedia:Administrators, and I quote:

Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been entrusted with access to restricted technical features ("tools") which help with maintenance. For example, administrators can protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions as well. (For a more complete list, see Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools.)

Administrators undertake additional responsibilities voluntarily, and are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

— Wikipedia:Administrators

That philosophy leads to the understandable opinion that content issues, while not to be ignored, are secondary with respect to trust in non-abuse of tools and understanding of the policies and guidelines that administrators enforce. However, I have seen another school of thought, which has its merits as well. The next paragraph in Wikipedia:Administrators reads, and I quote:

Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, those seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. When the communal feeling may be unclear, administrators may help provide a thoughtful voice in some kinds of consensus (see this comment).

— Wikipedia:Administrators

In this particular aspect of the administrator, it is sensible to want the potential sysop to grok the project; and this is often best seen by the nature of the content that the candidate contributes.

The question now is is there a consensus among EnWiki editors that the latter kind of opinion should be given as much weight as the former? If the community can agree that it should, then we, as bureaucrats, need to understand that. If there is no such consensus, then the weight we give to such opinions will perforce be somewhat subjective based on our own understandings of what the RfA process is and what mandate we have.

I would like to hear other bureaucrats' opinions on this, as well as those of people who were way too smart to subject themselves to the public humiliation that is an RfB , so forgive me if I make two subsections below. Perhaps we need a project-wide RfC on this particular issue; perhaps not. I would appreciate your suggestions below. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

People too smart, lazy, busy, or otherwise to be bureaucrats

• I feel that if a person claims to be a content editor, then their understanding of policies that matter most to content editors is a strong way of gauging if they can properly interpret any policy. Measure a person by what they consider their strength. Obviously, the community as represented by the Bureaucrats disagrees with me and I accept that. I would just like a simple answer on how I can appropriately show where a user has overstepped their role as an editor so that people can be more thoroughly informed so I can do such without having a topic ban of RfA drawn upon me (as per DougsTech with the rational that since the Bureaucrats were already discounting his vote that any participation in that manner is disruptive and should therefore result in a ban). Thank you for your time in responding with a pertinent answer. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not exactly true, Ottava, that this case is indicative of the communities consensus; that is exactly why I posted that tl;dr monstrosity above. In this case, Dan felt that such oppositions carried less weight. Another bureaucrat may or may not have decided that way. Dan may not decide that way in the future. We all may decide that way if it comes out that your opinion is the distinct minority. Personally, I believe that you should continue to voice such opinions; they should not be discounted out-of-hand, but weighed in relation to everything else that is said. Then again, I said that pretty clearly on WT:RFA and here last week. That is also solely my opinion, which is why, once again, I am asking for the other bureaucrats to weigh in and we can perhaps 1)let the community have a clearer understanding of our current decision processes and 2) see if there is sufficient consensus in the community for us to reflect in said decision process. At this point, Ottava, as eloquent as your arguments may be, it is still not clear that the consensus of the project, or at the least of the people who take their time to respond at RfA, is with you, and while your opinions are as valid as anyones, the bureaucrats need to do their best to reflect what the greater community feels, as nebulous as that sounds. I'm sorry I cannot give you a clearer answer; that's part of why I posted here. -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I was informed from multiple sources that quite a few people agree with Dan's viewpoint on my oppose. I don't care about that, as it is clear that community consensus is against me. I just want to know how to proceed without being banned. I care more about my ability to edit Wikipedia than letting a few problematic people become admin. I have already asked Deskana, as I respect his voice above most on Wikipedia. I would like other input too. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself; if an oppose is made in a fashion that is not a violation of editor conduct (personal attack, etc.) it should not be struck nor should the person rendering the opinion be sanctioned. RfA is a discussion, and as long as that discussion is handled with respect, there should not be any repercussions. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dan made the wrong decision in my opinion, but it was within his discretion to make. Enough with the torches and pitchforks. As for necessity of content building? It's an asset but not essential. Requiring content-building of admins means that people more inclined to be gnomes would never be admins, which is profoundly stupid. → ROUX ₪ 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Rdsmith4, Users without recent regular contributions to the project will by that very nature have no commitment to the project and should have no say in anything controversial here, these users could also possess outdated authority from the community. This outdated authority is destructive to the project and requires revoking. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC))
  • Stop beating a dead horse. This discussion has nothing to do with what you're on about. → ROUX ₪ 21:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Having term limits is a perennial suggestion, one which I personally disagree with for what it is worth. Perhaps this incident will galvanize people to change, perhaps not, but may I respectfully point out that I am looking for guidance specifically with regard to the weight that should be given to content-based opinions on RfX's. Your point, as valid as it may be, doesn't address that. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rob, you've said a few times now that you suspect I'm out of touch with the community due to inactivity. I assure you that I have been quite regularly active on this wiki for fully five years now, am a longtime contributor to the ongoing discussion of the role of bureaucrats, and have my eye keenly fixed on RFA-related debate wherever I may find it. I have every intention of continuing to do the job of a bureaucrat in such a way as to keep the RFA process functioning at the highest level, as best I know how and with continual advice from the community. — Dan | talk 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I thank you for you comments, but I dispute your involvment in the project and I respectfuly request you to denounce your outdated authority or reapply for bureaucrat status as you are almost not involved in the project. Looking at your recent edits is a simple denial of your statements. Are you stating that you intend to become more involved in the project? You are almost not involved here, apart from this disputed decision. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

moved to Rdsmith4 talk page. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

• • • • And again, that has nothing to do with what this discussion is about. Your one-note focus on this is growing tiresome and borderline disruptive. → ROUX ₪ 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If you really think that Dan made a bad decision, and that he needs to lose his tools, go to ArbCom; they are the only ones who can do anything about it. Quit whining about it here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but you mistate the case. My objection, and it seems to me the objection of many others, is that in this case the bureaucrat decided to ignore content-related opposes while accepting content-related supports. To try to hide that discrepancy by opening a separate discussion is, in my view, highly suspicious of an attempt to cover up one bureaucrat's serious error of judgement. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for refactoring your comments, Malleus; it's the wikignome in me. I do not see where Dan implied he counted content-based supports but ignored content based errors in his detailed explanation here Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Reply. I see that he counted content-based oppositions less, and that, combined with his statement that he requires a higher level of clarity for oppositions than supports ("no big deal" mention) was enough to allow him to make his decision. That is not a discrepancy being hidden, that was said outright, and while you and I may disagree with that decision process, that does not mean it was ipso facto incorrect, unless I am misunderstanding you? -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• It depends, really. A lack of substantial content creation is an issue, but should not be enough to fail an RfA. We are of course an encyclopedia, and article work is essential, but the project wouldn't survive without gnomes and janitors. And as noted, the number of FAs/GAs a given candidate has written rarely equates to level of experience of competence as a sysop. I say this as someone who passed RfA with close to 20 pieces of featured content and about 40 good articles. With that said, obvious, blatant, and consistent violations of core content policies (WP:OR, WP:V, etc) do indicate a lack of overall knowledge of policy, and often bring into the question the candidate's level of experience and competence. I wouldn't expect a user to pass RfA shortly after being blocked for repeated copyright violations. In terms of bureaucrat discretion, it's acceptable for the closing 'crat to decide which votes, content-related or otherwise, hold more water. We elect bureaucrats for a reason. I was Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs)'s nominator, and as someone who has worked with Dave for a year, I'm obviously very happy that he passed; had I been the closing 'crat, I would most likely have not closed it the same way, but the decision was within Rdsmith4's discretion, and was not contrary to any policy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Against policy or not, it was a controversial closure and there are people like you and baloonman and a couple of others who have stated here that they would not of closed in the same way. ..No concensus, Simple. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

And how does that relate to anything? FWIW, I disagree with the closure as well, but then again, I'm not the closing crat. The closing crat has full say of whether it's a pass or fail. But complaining about it will get you nowhere, and it's just dragging on the drama. There comes a point when you should stop beating the horse and move on to more important things. (X! · talk)  · @972  ·  22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean it was controversial or against consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is contoversial, less than one similar closure a year. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Similar in terms of percentage, yes. But again, consensus is not determined solely through raw numbers, so for all we know, there could have been plenty of similar cases in the past year. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No there haven't, this is a rare closure, you youself have said you would close in a different way. If you have links to other similar closures to show as you say that ..there have been plenty of similar closures, I would have a good look at that, the facts I have dispute your comments, this is a exceptionally rare low percentage closure. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

So, am I correct after this discussion that.. In RFA all the supports whatever they say, including only a signature, are good.

If it is necessary in a low percentage then only the opposes are scrutinised as worthwhile or not, the support votes are indisputable , this is at the complete discretion of the individual closing crat. Votes against if just a signature can be ignored but support votes that are just a signature are to be accepted in all cases.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Rob - don't worry about it. Consensus is against the closure being problematic. The only thing you can do is wait until there is another time and hope that people agree with you then. You weren't personally involved in it so you have nothing to really lose in the matter. As one of the parties specifically singled out, I would like this to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, remove this page from your watchlist immediately. I know you have issues related this topic but I am not really up on your personal story.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

(ec) Rob, the same goes for you. You've dragged this discussion out so long that it's causing nothing but drama. Nothing will come out of this discussion. You've been told this multiple times. Consensus is that Rdsmith4 was acting in his role as a crat to close it this way. The more you complain, the less people will actually take your arguments seriously. (And FWIW, I'm recusing from any further discussion here) (X! · talk)  · @002  ·  23:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• As a community, we have rejected candidates for adminship when it's been shown that they have difficulty expressing themselves adequately in English. Many such candidates are not native English speakers; others are those who express their frustration in incivil ways; others are simply not eloquent writers. In all of these cases, the key issue is that when an administrator takes an action, he or she needs to be able to communicate the reasons for doing so in a calm, clear manner. Reviewing the content of mainspace edits is one way to gauge a candidate's communication abilities. In the recent case, there was little work in administration-related areas to use to evaluate the candidate's abilities, so it was reasonable to look at content edits. Most contributors at RFA are aware of the strengths and drawbacks of evaluating a candidate in this way, and it is with those factors in mind that many people opposed the recent RFA. It is, of course, a bureaucrat's responsibility to weigh the arguments in an RFA and find consensus (or a lack thereof). However, it's really not appropriate for the bureaucrats to reject one type of argument categorically when it is clear that a large number of community members share the view that the edits in question are relevant to administrative duties. I hope this will be avoided in the future. Dekimasuよ! 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well said, me too. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Seems a very sensible discussion to me. I've had my pepsi. I would just like to say, I agree with Avi there are certain opposes that can be given more weight than others. I think the discomfort I feel in the decision was that opposes based on editorial ability were all but ignored. In a situation with less than 70 % support I feel that the bureaucrat should really only discount demonstrably poor opposes. Anyway I'm not coming back into this discussion, my bit said back to another pepsi. Polargeo (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you intend to let this run it's full course as he originally asked, or are you going to consider closing it per his no issues with it being closed. It's getting to the point where opposes are repetitive and there's no need for him to be put through the process when everyone is aware that it won't pass, and I doubt he'll learn much more from further opposes or neutrals. Should it be SNOWed? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with letting it run if he thinks it is useful (my 2 pence) Plastikspork (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Plastikspork. It's not hurting anyone being up, and if he wants it up, he wants it up. If the opposes are getting repetitive and it's obvious it's not going to pass, then people can stop opposing/caring. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie, just checking. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

GrooveDog states he wants it open for the full seven days. I don't see anything wrong with that. People are free to refrain from adding repetitive posts. Kingturtle (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely concur. The point of WP:NOTNOW vis-a-vis RfA's is to 1) prevent unnecessary upsetness on the part of the candidate and 2) prevent extra make-work. When the candidate specifically requests the full length of time, both issues are obviated. -- Avi (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. More importantly, there are legitimate supports, which I believe would render NOTNOW non-applicable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

D'you suppose that should be an actual listing in the NOTNOW page? It'd make sense that if there are genuine supports from good-standing editors, then NOTNOW shouldn't be applied. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone could support anyone. I don't think it should be put in NOTNOW, because it could be taken too generally. What's a good-standing editor? What if other editors like the nominee (who we assume to be fairly new, as we're discussing NOTNOW) support? For the same reason that RfA doesn't give qualifications for an admin, NOTNOW shouldn't define supporters. I think it should just be taken as a sort of unwritten guideline of sorts; common sense. If they have some supports, it doesn't apply. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Touché. Just an idea! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone! :-D Just thought I'd clarify, I don't need my adminship request up. I understand that the reasons nominations are usually closed are "protecting the morale of the candidate" (not an exact quote, mind you), however I understand that no comments are directly personal towards myself therefore it doesn't really bother me in the slightest. If it does severely impact the functioning of RfA in some way, by all means take it down. Even if a crat or other editor just doesn't like it, be BOLD and take it down. :-P GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 03:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't impact RfA (as a whole) at all, so I think the point still stands: it doesn't need to be taken down, and that the fact that it's going to fail is irrelevant when you requested that it stay up. The best, Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If the criticism isn't too much of a bother, I suggest leaving it up; you may get some good advice from it. Speaking from experience, I let both of my first two failed RfB's run to completion specifically to get as much advice from the project as I could, and I found it very helpful, albeit emotionally draining. -- Avi (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Avi, I do agree. Most of the criticism is really the "you've been here for a week" thing, I'll accept that. :-P I understand that if I really want criticism I could just go to editor review, however I went into this RfA with an open mind that whatever happens, happens. It's not bothering anyone from what I can tell, so I may as well collect all the constructive criticism I can get. :-P GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I put my money where my mouth was :-) -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Running early is one of those "Be careful what you ask for" things, because the community is likely to tell you exactly what they want, and that may be a problem the next time you run, if what they asked for wasn't the direction you wanted to go. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it down, or is it my internet connection?

Is there a page where its status is shown? Perhaps a traffic light could be displayed in a corner of the namechange pages to automatically reflect it? --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just you. The toolserver has been malfunctioning most of the day for me. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been timing out for me too. bibliomaniac15 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that ClueBot VI is set to archive successful usurpations on WP:CHUU 12 hours after they are marked done. It should be extended to at least 24 hours, and maybe even 36 hours. Any thoughts? Kingturtle (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How about 3 days, to ensure that things dont get lost over the weekend. -- Avi (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think 3 days is a bit too long (the page might get long and unwieldy), so 36 hours sounds good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that it's too long. The page has on average 15-20 edits per day only (page stats) and 10-15 open requests. RFPP has much more requests at a time without becoming unwieldy. And as Avi says, it might be quite useful to keep them open for a bit longer so people see them easily. Regards SoWhy 07:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try three days, for now. And we can change it if it doesn't work. Kingturtle (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, given that CHUU doesn't see as many additions as, say, CHU, I think three days might be a decent starting point. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Who can make this change? Kingturtle (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Cobi (talk · contribs), it seems to be hardcoded into the bot as far as I can see. Regards SoWhy 11:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - See here. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cobi. Kingturtle (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Blinking Spirit (talk · contribs) suggested at WT:Bureaucrats#Add spoken languages ? to add a column "spoken languages" to the crat overview table, saying that people who need assistance with renames might not speak English. As a similar idea, I suggested to make the instructions on WP:CHU and WP:CHU/SUL available in multiple languages since this is where people usually are linked to by interwiki-links; so I decided to place the suggestion here where more crats might read it. What do you think? Regards SoWhy 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure just how feasible this would be. I'm probably terribly biased, though; I'm used to figuring out what stuff is just by its context (ie: as soon as I see {{ I know it's a template to use, and Google Translate can be helpful in a pinch). How many different languages would we have instructions in? What's the cut-off; the top twenty? Thirty? We've already got so much crap at the top of WP:CHU that I'm worried we'd clutter the page all the more.
As for adding our spoken languages on the main WP:CRAT page, that's not a bad idea at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the how many are feasible argument and if you only include those, what good did it do for how much it will hurt the usability of the page. Besides, on a project you don't speak the language for, how badly do you need a username change? And if you really do, I suppose that's what the embassies are for, getting someone that speaks your language to help you out. - Taxman ^Talk 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example to get another account renamed so you can SUL is probably something one needs to request. And I see no harm in having a subpage with however many languages people translate for us. They would not make the main page less easy to navigate. Regards SoWhy 15:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• If translation of anything is to occur, I think all we should worry about is the instruction list for /SUL. That's the locus of interest for non-native users. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could do something like metawiki does and have a "select language" box at the instructions for people with JavaScript. (X! · talk)  · @177  ·  03:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL seems to need some crat attention. Would be nice if someone could take a look at it. Regards SoWhy 10:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to split Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 5 from Xenobot (already flagged) to a new user account [7]. Please +makebot Xenobot Mk V. Thanks in advance, –xeno^talk 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, but makebot was deprecated long ago in favor of userrights. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

hehe, I know. I was being nostalgic =) thanks again, –xeno^talk 22:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld has requested a rename at CHU. Thing is, he has 263,063 edits. An editor has suggested that only a steward can perform the rename; I'm not certain if that's true, but it does bring up an interesting point.

If for no other reason than personal knowledge, is there a limit to the number of edits we should try to rename? Or should we just hit the button and walk away knowing that, indirectly, we've protected Wikipedia from being vandalized for about an hour? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the limit is two million, not 200000. And I think it takes a developer, not a Steward, to do that. With regard to crashing the wiki, a rename of any user with more than 10000 edits will enter the job queue, so it shouldn't crash the project, although it may force people to manually purge pages more often. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with the most recent limits in the code, but I'd assume you're right it would take a developer to change above whatever the limit is. Last I heard though, below whatever limit is available to bcrats and stewards (which was the same and rather large) it doesn't lock up the servers anymore it just goes into the job queue and completes someday maybe. Some of them don't work with large numbers of edits. - Taxman ^Talk 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not a great idea to put that much load on the servers because somebody is bored of their novelty name, and wants to change it from 'Dr. Blofeld' to 'Himalayan Explorer'. The job queue loads servers, too. If the name change is truly necessary, perhaps we can work something out, or he can create a new account. — Werdna • talk 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So I'm stuck with my user name because I put a lot of hard work into wiki? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but I am e-mailing Brion just to make sure. Please bear with us. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not unless there is a software limit we can't do anything about. And we all appreciate your contributions, but is your continued contribution really conditioned upon the username which you contribute under? - Taxman ^Talk 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but it is difficult for me to imagine anyone averaging 200 edits per day for three years without doing things that at least border on bot activity. Have you perhaps considered that some of your activities might be better managed under one or more separate accounts anyway? Dragons flight (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another solution would be to just start a new username, and stop using the old name. The old name could have manually created redirects to the new username. Not as pretty, but a lot less stress on the system. Kingturtle (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but if we can, I think we should try to keep the edits with the new account. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, that seems to be the case. I trust that you are happy with your username, since you have made over 260,000 edits with it. — Werdna • talk 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline then, OK, forget the idea then. Don't want to cause any server trouble. The next time somebody says I'm lazy and do little to improve this site tell em I couldn't change my user name because it is embedded in too many articles!! I'll have to build a Buddhist meditation chamber in my volcano with panoramic scenery of mountains then. I'm happy then to pretend it is still the swinging 60s and the war is still a Cold one then... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on Brion :) -- Avi (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Werdna is a developer as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True, sorry Werdna. Are you saying that it is not suggested? -- Avi (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Per the evil Dr. Vibber "Servers would not be very happy; don't do it." Sorry -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Altering your perception of reality is far less taxing on the servers. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking at MediaWiki:Renameusererrortoomany and I assume variable $3 is set to 2,000,000 per the system defaults, should we have it set lower per the WP:PERF issues Avi cites? MBisanz ^talk 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason not to rename if the user requests it. This is a classic example of Don't worry about performance. Due to his high edit count, the rename will enter the job queue. It won't crash the servers or kill any small furry animals. If he wants to be renamed, fill out whatever silly forms have been devised and press the button. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Brion Vibber specifically requested that we not do it, MZM. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And the page MZM refers to states "listen to the system administrators if they tell you not to do something." Kingturtle (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then file a bug, please. Were his comments only in private correspondence? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed him earlier, due to the expediency of the matter, as if the rename could have been done, it should have been started ASAP. I have since asked him to make a post here as well. -- Avi (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know for sure about the theoretical limit of edits for renames, but I can tell you it's unpredictable over 5,000 edits. I've seen 15,000 edit renames work fine (though it can take 1-2 days for it to work through the system and rename all edits) and I've seen 7k or so crash and never recover. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The highest I renamed was User:Altenmann (current username, has renamed twice, of which I renamed the first time), who had over 100k edits when I renamed him. Took me 10 tries to get him to rename, but luckily all his edits have reattributed. bibliomaniac15 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell me more. If you just repeat the process a few times, eventually the edits that didn't reattribute before, do so? Of course I'm talking about waiting days or more in between tries. I thought repeating it would really cause havoc with the accounts. - Taxman ^Talk 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the present system is crap for user name changes. :) If there's doubt as to whether it'll work, just leave the old account in place. It's trivial to create your new account with your new name and you're done! On the other hand if we haven't put in place a limit that needs to be overcome by special action, then I'm not sure why folks are asking here -- just push the button and get it over with. :) --brion (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So you won't mind if we push the button on Blofield's 260K edits -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, If indeed this CHU approved, please make 110% certain that you can live with the new name. Changing it again isn't going to be pretty. Kingturtle (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, of notable interest, I just performed a CHU that involved 93,247 edits. It took a few minutes, but less than 10, to complete. There don't appear to be any hang ups or problems. Kingturtle (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are still a few thousand residual edits on the old account. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... these things take time. Edits can take up to a day to reattribute. Nothing problematic, I think. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And sometimes they take weeks plus dev intervention (xeno comes to mind). Occasionally, with a large number of edits, the job queue craps out, and stops the rename. It requires a sysadmin to reset it. (X! · talk)  · @648  ·  14:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Chiming in here to support those at WP:CHU who preferred the Dr. Blofield name. Keep it! –xeno^talk 14:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a kindly reminder that Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Kingpin13 has been open 9 days by my reckoning. A crat stopping by at their leisure would be appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. - Taxman ^Talk 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)