Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Hello! I am trying to connect Account en:User:Gampe to my Global account, but I have not succeeded. Could somebody tell me, what is wrong? Thank you! cs:Wikipedista:Gampe --213.220.223.206 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems from the SUL utility, so perhaps it is because the account (and the one at de.wikipedia) existed, but had a different password when you merged accounts. Try logging into the account and changing the password to be the same as your global account, Then try merging your accounts again by going to Special:MergeAccount. That should work, but you may also have to set the email to be the same as your global account and confirm it by going into your preferences and follwing the link next to your email or going to Special:ConfirmEmail. See Help:Email confirmation and m:Help:Unified login. - Taxman ^Talk 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, we're fiddling around with the wording in this template, feel free to revert. Also see the new, related template Template:uw-softerblock (formerly uw-shortublock), which is intended only for softblocks for usernames that appear to represent a group, organization or website, and only in those cases where there are few contributions, so that neither WP:CHU nor spamublock is likely to be a reasonable choice. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked a few individuals about creating a secondary account in order to use at public access terminals at various libraries I work at. I would fully disclose the name at the top of both user pages. I would also tend to use the name rarely, but enough to warrant it. The name I wished to take was Coriolanus, as it had no log of creation and seemed available. However, I get the error "Username entered already in use. Please choose a different name". An account creator tried the same thing and failed. It was suggested that maybe the last four letters caused it to hit a blacklist. Regardless, I would like to use the name. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not use Ottava Rima Public? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is aesthetically absurd. :) Plus, I would rather not have someone go to a terminal and find my user account. It is more likely for them to see Ottava Rima Public and see a connection then think that it is a public account sock and look at the user page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not absurb. Lots of users have public in their public account name. Why would someone go to a terminal and find your account-unless you left it open and walked away ;-) Whatever name you use you'd have it on the user pages and so it'd be known to anyone who saw the user pages as the connection should be disclosed in the first place, so there's nothing to hide. Note if you look at Special:ListUsers you'll see the account you ask for already listed. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Special ListUsers doesn't work for me. I tried to look it up on the account creation log and I received nothing. See here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Logs. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The username is available now. — Dan | talk 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe you are looking for WP:USURP. –xeno^talk 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What's with the "enwiki_p isn't found" error on the SUL tool? -- Avi (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

s1 is being re-imported right now so its down. β^_command 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whenabouts is it going to be finished? EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

half past wheneversday. -- Avi (talk)

I'll put that in my calendar. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard reports that it will be done about Wednesday, so it's a few days away. Despite the long ETA, there are only two tables left. ;) (X! · talk)  · @918  ·  21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's back...ish. sulutil is apparently delayed a bit, but it at least sees enwiki again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's some replication lag due to the import taking as long as it does. The current replag is always available here (enwiki_p is on S1). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also {{toolserver}}, which is a bit more idiot-proof. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you really want idiot proof, look at this. That's about as bare-bones as you can get. (X! · talk)  · @158  ·  02:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, 404 pages are very bare-bones. (dunno why the interwiki'fication of the tools: link didn't parse the ?, =, and & characters properly) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! [1] (X! · talk)  · @152  ·  02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like s1 is down again with only intermittent access for the next few days.[2] --Allen3 ^talk 00:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not repaired yet. I wonder what is holding to fix the problem.--Caspian blue 16:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Faulty part, pending replacement next week, until then it will be on and off. — JamesR (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User has requested closure of his RfA. Law _{type! snype?} 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Any editor can close an RfA if the candidate has withdrawn it; all we ask is that you follow the instructions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya. I didn't feel like doing it. Law _{type! snype?} 10:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Laziness is the mother of invention... or at least, the mother of making someone else do it. (X! · talk)  · @158  ·  02:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An alternate take on Böserup's theory! See Ester Böserup#Her theories. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I would like to be one, since I am not all that inactive anymore. RFA, request, desysop, log entry. Thanks :) ~ Ameliorate! 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I clearly remember when Amel was desysopped, I do not recall any associated controversy. Amel, will you need your admin bot resysopped? MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYKadminBot is still an admin, it was taken over by Nixeagle when I took a break. ~ Ameliorate! 03:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok, well welcome back as soon as a crat finds this thread. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Resysopped. Welcome back. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks :) ~ Ameliorate! 03:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to have you back. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome back. :-D SoWhy 08:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! It's so great to see you again! (X! · talk)  · @058  ·  00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

--Dweller (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How come no one's looking over this page? It's getting pretty backlogged. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. There aren't that many really active Crats and I would guess, given the month, that a number of them are away. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had to scale back my editing a fair amount, due to real-life commitments (my usual summer show plus I'll be moving in a couple of weeks) and other issues (constant harassment vandalism on enwiki that eats into my time here). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

Well, if there's a lack of active bureaucrats at the moment, I should have some time available to help out and am willing to do so. Please take this as a request for the return of the user rights I relinquished at the end of last year. Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Words cannot express how happy I am to mark this as  Done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Welcome back, WJBscribe! :D Acalamari 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<insert manic cheering here> -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

:D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What EVula said. You returning has made my day. The Crat zone has never been the same after you left. Great to have you back! (X! · talk)  · @059  ·  00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just delighted. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

<happy dance>Welcome back!</happy dance> (also)Happy‑melon 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk · contribs) resigned his admin rights yesterday, following a controversial block of Sarah777 (talk · contribs) (see [3]). Since it is clear he has resigned in direct response to this, should it be made clear if he resigned under a cloud or not? I see no one has added him to WP:FORMER yet. Majorly talk 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this something that should be considered when/if he requests re-instatement? I note the injured party made the following comment at DK's talk page:

OK. Then you made the right decision. In fact, on the basis of you doing such a (rare) and honorable thing I'd happily support a reinstatement request. In fact I'd encourage it. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So I think this bridge should be crossed when we come to it. –xeno^talk 13:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See the long thread above. It should be considered now while the incident is still fresh. Majorly talk 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I agree with Ryan's assessment below. –xeno^talk 13:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The term controversial/under a cloud in this instance means that if someone gave up their adminship when there was a real possibility of losing it forcibly through either ArbCom or another method. Was DrKiernan likey to lose the tools forcibly here? One controversial block is unlikely to get someone desysopped so in my opinion this isn't under a cloud in the Wikipedia adminship sense of the term. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion either way, but it would be best to clarify now. Majorly talk 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If the issue was a dispute over one block, then I don't see any objection to resysopping on request, if such a request is ever made. (Commenting as an editor, not in any other capacity, since this hasn't come before the arbitrators in any fashion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Majorly has a valid point, this should be clarified, although not here. We should have a general discussion (maybe at WP:VPP?) about when such a "cloud" exists (same as NYB suggested above) to avoid controversies in the future. Regards SoWhy 13:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not call this a cloud because a) the incident was very unlikely to lead to desysoping, and b) The person he is supposed to be under a cloud with welcomes his reinstatement[4]. Chillum 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine then. Just wanted to be sure. This thread can be closed now. Majorly talk 13:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Controversial leaving - he clearly left after breaking a policy. It can't get clearer than in such a situation as the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think "under a cloud" means accused of breaking a policy? The situation above does not seem to be as clear as you think. Chillum 14:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - ArbCom's ruling has nothing to do with this. Please see our policy: Wikipedia:ADMIN#Voluntary removal "(that is, not in controversial circumstances)". This is clearly a controversial circumstance. Any claim that it is not is to rewrite what the word "controversial" means and is academically dishonest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Kiernan made a mistake. He fell on his sword. He is, imo, to be complimented. I would support a reapplication. Learning from mistakes is most effective. I would not use the term "Controversial leaving". If only more admins had the same sense of honor ClemMcGann (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies to Julian as I see he did mark this as resolved. I just wanted to mention that perhaps more extensive use of the {{note}} function/tag/template on the WP:FORMER page (with links to threads like this one) would be of assistance to our 'crats when they are reviewing a re+ situation. — Ched :  ?  14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add something as I'm not feeling too good about all this: I was amazed and impressed by the integrity Dr Kiernan displayed. There is no question that I was somewhat uncivil; the issue was that I felt I was singled out because I was in earlier dispute with DrKiernan whereas others on his "side" of the argument appear to have some immunity from WP:CIVIL. However in the light of DrKiernan's resignation I no longer beleive there was any bad motivation in what he did. Maybe just poor judgement; but I'd argue the row he dissolved by resigning shows the poor judgement was not typical. As as to the question of him losing his Adminship under a cloud; hardly. I'd have simply settled for an apology - even a "half apology" would have sufficed. Sarah777 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As most of you know, I resigned my 'cratship back in May. Some of the issues that prompted this are now over, some real life issues are not. However, I have more on-wiki time now then I have had for a long while, and if the 'crats need another pair of hairy hands to keep the backlogs in check, I'd be happy to help out once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Welcome back, TRM. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This day's just getting better. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great to have you back as a crat TRM. :D Pmlineditor  Talk 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Both WJB and TRM returning makes the place a little better just by itself. Welcome back both of you! SoWhy 11:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Everyone's coming back! Great to have all three of you back! (X! · talk)  · @731  ·  16:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with X! :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

TRM resigned his 'cratship under an Arbcom cloud. On June 14, 2009, he was admonished by Arbcom for not following proper dispute resolution procedures. The evidence against him, consisting primarily of hundreds of instances of individualized edit warring, tag team edit warring, and disruptive behavior, was long, shocking, and far below the standard expected of bureaucrats and administrators. The only reason that he did not receive a more severe sanction was that a particular arbitrator, John Vandenberg, worked behind the scenes with TRM to obtain the latter's informal and secret agreement to cease the problematic behaviors. (E-mail from Vandenberg to me available to anyone who needs to see it.) Many of you will recall the discussion on this very noticeboard about whether a resigned 'crat, including TRM, should be allowed to regain his 'cratship without going through an RFB. The consensus then seemed to be that this issue would be discussed at the appropriate time. Instead of doing that, TRM's crat flag was restored only 22 minutes after TRM filed the request, thereby short-circuiting any discussion of the issue. That was highly inappropriate. Tennis, expert (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Anonymous Dissident, were you aware that Rambling Man was formally admonished in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, and that voting on the proposed decision in that case began 3 days after he resigned? If so, please explain your rationale for restoring his bureaucrat status without discussion or RFB. If not, what do you intend to do now? Thatcher 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that a good outcome might well be for TRM himself to ask that the bits be removed until this is sorted out, or failing that, that AD do so, without any prejudice to the final resolution. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • AD cannot; that requires a steward, Lar (which you are :) ). The best would be to ask TRM to request they be removed until this is clarified. I have notified ArbCom via func-l. -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

      • AD (or TRM) can ask that they be removed. Anyone can do that, but the 'crat who decides they accidentally did something, or the user themselves, are the two least controversial people to go and ask, anyone else (other than ArbCom) would get declined for lack of consensus, I'd think. But perhaps NYB has it right, if everyone's mellow, all will be well, no need for temp removal. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

      • BTW, I am aware of the argument from May that since he was not accused of misusing 'crat tools, there is no cloud. However, the desyoppingde-cratting of Jayjg a few days before might have set a precedent that should be considered. Some might argue that Ramblin' Man's conduct was not long-term enough to trigger the "conduct unbecoming" ruling that applied to Jayjg, but if so, an explanation ought to be made. Thatcher 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
        • For the record, Jayjg was not desysopped. He was de-checkuserd and de-oversighted. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Right, oops. Thatcher 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) **I don't see any need to actually remove the bits while this is discussed, but perhaps The Rambling Man can agree not to use his bureaucrat privileges until this issue is resolved. As for the longer-term issue, I have a personal opinion as to what would have happened had The Rambling Man not resigned during the Date delinking case, and hence whether his privileges should be subject to restoration, but is it desired that this issue be raised with the other arbitrators? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this require a full RfAr? I hope not. The question is was TRM's abdication of the bits under the proverbial "cloud". If yes, then AD made an honest mistake, and we flag down a passing steward. If not, then we put the entire discussion above into a collapse box and move on. Do we need ArbCom to rule on that? If so, can it be done without having to go through the bureacratic ballet of an RfAr, and if not, will a discussion on AN(I) suffice? -- Avi (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't ArbCom usually write something into the proposed decision if they feel the user should not be able to request their bits back? In a previous case they wrote: "[User] resigned his status as an administrator ... while the above arbitration case was pending. Should [user] request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship or request approval of the Committee.". They didn't write anything like this wrt TRM. –xeno^talk 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is some ongoing behavioural issue here or arbitration enforcement to be done, I don't see what the Committee can contribute productively to this matter. Local consensus is the proper and sufficient route to take, and should that fail to emerge clearly, an RfB can be run. For the record, I support the restoration of rights (for the reason Thatcher cites above for starters).  Skomorokh 

If you apply 'under the cloud' he needs to go through RfB. If not, AnonDiss was right. So which is it? Prodego ^talk 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the $64,000 Question, Prodego :) -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom needs to clarify that, clearly, for a final disposition to make sense. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Before this turns into yet another circus, I suggest we await AD's response. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Pinged AD. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Seconded. However, I wonder if TRM would be willing to go through another RfB... iMatthew ^talk at 20:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I hope he doesn't, because RfBs are hell to pass if you've pissed anyone off ever, and TRM is a fine 'crat. His behaviour which led to the arbitration case was not related to his use of the tools available to a bureaucrat, and I'd argue that he therefore doesn't fall under the normal "under a cloud" definition. Ironholds (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)I think that this would be at worst an honest mistake on AD's part. As the incidents surrounding TRM were nowhere near as public as some of the other issues, it is reasonable to believe it slipped his mind. -- Avi (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
        • If arbcom doesn't desysop (or decrat in this case), then the crats decide if 'the cloud' is present or not. It isn't something arbcom needs to clarify, its something AD needs to. Prodego ^talk 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)Although at this point, a crat chat may be appropriate with all the publicity /shrug. -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
        • (after 5 edit conflicts) Agreed. I would be severely shocked if Anonymous Dissident promoted TRM if he knew of the ArbCom case. (X! · talk)  · @901  ·  20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm questioning whether it's necessary to make a comment every 1 minute (literally) at this thread when there's still no comment from ArbCom or AD. I think that the best thing to do for everyone is just hold your horses, and await a response from the people directly involved. (X! · talk)  · @903  ·  20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict time 6!) Ironholds, that's right. When you're in such a high position, even if you're the best person to ever do the job, you piss off too many people. I doubt that many of our crats now would pass if they ran again today. iMatthew ^talk at 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone with greater familiarity with the case in question can no doubt confirm this, but am I right in thinking (a) there was no proposal in workshop calling for TRM's bureaucrat access to be removed and (b) that the proposed decision did not include any finding that TRM resigned in controversial circumstances? WJBscribe (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Resigning when there are allegations of lots of edit warring and the rest is an obvious cloud. There should be a request for motion/clarification by Arbcom over this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where the official proposed decision bears little resemblance to anything on the workshop page and was drafted by an arbitrator who barely participated on the workshop. So the only way to know whether TRM's resignation affected the proposed decision (which was opened for voting 3 days after his resignation) is to ask the arbitrator who drafted the proposed decision. Thatcher 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thatcher, please read above - the evidence that the user massively edit warred deserves a desysopping and probably a ban from ever running for RfA or RfB again. I am saying that the motion or clarification should be open so that ArbCom would put forth the very obvious. -No- admin or crat or anyone should ever dare edit war like that. It is disgusting and should be something that gets you banned from the project. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not offering an opinion one way or the other on your and Tennis Expert's argument. I was answering Scribe, who noted that there was nothing in the proposed decision about limits on reinstatement. Because the arbitrator who drafted the proposed decision did not comment much on the workshop (specifically, he did not comment on the evidence of misconduct by TRM) the only way to know whether TRM was not mentioned in the proposed decision is to ask the drafting arbitrator. Thatcher 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Since when do we ban people from running for RfA or RfB? The only possible application would be if someone kept opening a new RfA every few days, and even then I've never seen it done. If someone didn't get their tools granted back, we don't prevent them from going before the community. Enigma^msg 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you are responding to Scribe, then please thread your comments better - as of right now, the above is a response to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy clarification

For clarification, the ArbCom first established (in the Giano case) that an administrator or other functionary who resigns his or her privileges "under controversial circumstances" must undergo a new RfA or RfB to regain them. (At my suggestion, the committee changed the wording from "under a cloud," a phrasing I find disparaging and unacceptable.) Otherwise, someone who has resigned voluntarily may regain privileges under request. (Interestingly, the fact that as far as I can tell these rules were established unilaterally by an arbitration decision could be characterized as a rather blatant example of policy creation by ArbCom, but I don't recall anyone having raised the objection and these principles appear to be generally accepted.)

Over the ensuing few months in 2006-2007, a number of arbitration cases came up in which administrators had resigned, and their resignation eliminated the entire need for the case, except for the need to decide whether the administrator had resigned under circumstances of controversy, precluding resysopping, or not. As a result, cases like Konstable had to be pursued to a conclusion even where there was nothing else to argue about, which was a misuse of the committee's and the community's time to argue about largely moot points. The balancing here was between encouraging admins to resign where this will resolve an issue, and avoid encouraging behavior along the lines of "I'll resign for a few weeks to avoid scrutiny of my actions and then come back when the heat is off."

Therefore, the committee next developed what I call the Philwelch rule, which provides that an administrator (or bureaucrat or whatever) who resigns while a request for arbitration is pending against him or her, is deemed to have resigned under controversial circumstances, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise. Factors that arbitrators might choose to consider include whether the case against the admin/crat appears to have had merit; whether the resignation appears to have been related/unrelated to the issues in the case; whether any adjudicated misconduct in the case was isolated or chronic, mild or severe; and (not dispositive but relevant) whether the misconduct involved use of the admin/crat tools themselves. In this instance, I have my own view as to whether The Rambling Man's resignation should be considered to have been under circumstances precluding recratting; but I will hold off on expressing that view until it becomes clear what is the appropriate forum for such discussion, which may be a motion on the Arbitration Motions page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Brad for these thoughtful comments, that will no doubt help Anon Diss and other bureaucrats reflect on this matter. My initial thought on reading them is that they are much clearer than the position that I have ever been able to discern from the ArbCom decisions themselves. Could you point to where ArbCom has ever stated that bureaucrats should automatically presume that someone who resigned while a request for Arbitration against them is pending (whatever remedy is being sought) has resigned in controversial circumstances. WJBscribe (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the PhilWelch case is clearer than I recalled [5]. WJBscribe (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, if it was under controversial circumstances, a new RfB would be necessary. However he only resigned due to personal reasons unrelated to WP, so I'm not seeing the problem. iMatthew ^talk at 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Brad, the plain meaning of your statement is that someone who resigns while a case is pending against them is assumed to have resigned under controversial circumstances unless Arbcom decides otherwise (and he did cite the case in his resignation statement). This immediately takes the matter off of BN and lays it on RFAR. It also means that Anon Dissident and the other 'crats never had standing to make the decision on their own in the first place, even if they had had a reasonable argument as to why reinstatement was the correct action. Thatcher 20:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The appropriate procedure could be for the bureaucrat to send a quick note to the ArbCom asking if there is a problem. If the arbitrators consult and decide that there is no issue, the bit can be flipped without further ado. On the other hand, it has also happened that an administrator (this issue comes up much more often re admins than re crats) resigns during a case or while a request is pending, for reasons that are not discussed extensively and publicly but are known to the arbitrators, so it is good that there be a quick check. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, assuming the 'crats are aware of the existence of a case. Thatcher 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled. TRM linked in his comment to his resignation statement and the comments that followed it. That is the situation that existed at the time. The discussions there, which are the best and only guide as to whether TRM resigned under a cloud, seem fairly clear to me. Certainly clearer than trying to retrospectively see what the score was. The consensus of the discussion was that TRM would be welcomed back when ready. The strongest opposition to that, unless I missed something, was from Dragon's flight, who seemed to be arguing we should never recrat without RfB - which is not how we've gone. TRM's resignation, which was part prompted by the date delinking and part not, was not under a cloud. I'm also not exactly charmed by the comments Tennis Expert makes about Arbcom in general and Jayvdb in particular. --Dweller (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Much as your analysis of the contemporaneous discussing is accurate, this seems a pretty clear cut statement from ArbCom and it is hard to see how it does not apply here. WJBscribe (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (x2) Wouldn't it be against the spirit of Wikipedia (especially WP:AGF) if ArbCom really set a rule like NYB mentions, i.e. something like "guilty until decided innocent"? ArbCom has so far (iirc) always ruled that someone resigned "under a cloud" when this was the case and as such, in those cases where they didn't (like the date delinking case in which TRM was involved) it would imho be against the Committee's own previous decisions to retroactively decide what NYB calls the "Philwelch rule" to be applied even in those cases where administrative tools were not relevant to the dispute at hand. I agree though that an ArbCom motion may be desirable although I think that TRM should not be de-cratted unless such a motion passes that he should be. Only if that happens, there really is an indication that this re-cratting was against policy. Currently, everything seems to be a bit unclear in that area and as such, both AD and TRM should be given the benefit of doubt. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, the appropriate procedure in these cases would simply be for a crat to check with the arbitrators and ask "is there a problem here?" The answer in this case would likely have been a quick No, although I can't speak for any arbitrators but me. I agree that the rule that has developed in this regard is not perfect—but there have not been any problems before in applying it, that I can recall, and as I discussed in my historical excursus above, the predecessors were worse. Most important, though—this is a policy issue. If the community thinks we should have a different or more clear procedure for resysoppings or recrattings, a policy discussion on the issue would be entirely in order. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with current situation, a bureaucrat (ideally Anon Diss or TRM but they seem to be away) could make a request on meta for a steward to remove TRM's flag pending ArbCom informing the bureaucrats whether he left in controversial circumstances. The flag might (depending on how the steward who responded exercised their discretion) then be removed pending further input. Alternatively, ArbCom could consider the matter after the fact, and approve the restoration of rights retrospectively. No doubt TRM will agree not to perform any bureaucrat actions pending further word from ArbCom. Which course of action would you recommend? WJBscribe (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the drama should be compounded by any more unnecessary de- or re-flaggings. TRM should know by now that there is an issue with the bit being flipped, and knows not to use the tools until this is clarified. The literal reading of the PhilWelch decision does not apply, as the case was not pending but actually accepted, and a reasonble argument may be made that pending is specific - as resignation at that point will be viewed as an attempt to "escape" from any ArbCom case, whereas once the case is opened, there is not much that the subject can do to escape the case--a ruling will come down. On the other hand, it may depend on the nature of the case. A case that has been accpeted and in which the evidence is rather clear that the subject is going to be de-bitted would be considered contreversial under any circumstance. At this point I see one of three possible options:

1. Request a formal clarification from ArbCom
2. Request the bureacrats determine whether or not there was controversy
3. Bring this to AN

Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the drafting is definitely unhelpful, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. "An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him." What is the difference between having "an arbitration case" or a "request for arbitration" pending against one? Perhaps a request for clarification to ArbCom to clean up their own drafting and give us some clear guidance would be best... WJBscribe (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a "request for arbitration" when it's still at the "accept or decline?" stage. It's a "case" once it's opened. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. But the Philwelch principle specifies either of those being "pending". Which seems to support Avi's conclusion that the principle does not apply once the case is opened... WJBscribe (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So how can a case be pending, then; the case should be open,unless we're getting too semantical? -- Avi (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up the word "pending". Most dictionaries offer two meanings:

1. Not yet decided, awaiting conclusion
2. Impending, imminent

I (and Avi I suppose) have been giving the word the second of those meanings. Brad presumably has the first in mind... WJBscribe (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearer language would most definitely be an improvement, yes. -- Avi (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• As pointed out above, there are serious allegations of -major- edit warring. ArbCom case or not, this is a cloud. This would have been a cloud if the allegations were on ANI, AN, some talk page, or the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential resolution

The basic question presented appears to be whether The Rambling Man should be precluded from being recratted (without a new RfB) based on the allegations made against him during the Date delinking arbitration and the fact that he resigned while the case was pending. On the overall record of the case, and based on my evaluation of the criteria discussed above, my personal impression is no. Unless something new is brought to my attention within the next few hours, I will offer a motion for ArbCom to confirm that The Rambling Man is eligible for recratting. In the meantime, there is no reason for anyone to request that his buttons be removed, but it would be best if he held off on using them until the motion is passed, if it is. As stated above, for future reference, the best procedure in these situations might be for the crat considering resysopping/recratting to check in informally with ArbCom just to ask if there is an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I should note (on my own behalf) that I am unhappy with this application of the Philwelch case. Other crats may feel the same way, but I will leave it to them to say so if that is the case. If ArbCom do not judge it important enough to make a finding in a case that someone who resigned during it did so in controversial circumstances (as they usually do), then I do not think it is for them to restrict the discretion of bureaucrats to determine whether the circumstances were controversial. ArbCom's primary jurisdiction is to hear user conduct disputes and to issue remedies. If they feel that someone must go through RfA/RfB to regain those rights (effectively akin to a desysopping) then I believe they should make an express finding to that effect. WJBscribe (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a plausible way of looking at it. The counter-argument is what if whether the admin should be desysopped is the only issue in a case, and there is a 95% chance that that individual will never request adminship again anyway. Should the arbitrators still have to deliberate and vote on whether he or she would be eligible to regain adminship, likely increasing the hard feelings of all concerned in the process, even though it probably will never matter? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Part of the problem is that "controversial circumstances" is in and of itself ambiguous, and not really subject to the Stewart obsecnity test. For some, being a subject of an ArbCom case may ipso facto controversial; for others, the writing (of de-sysoping) may need to be on the wall. If ArbCom is not going to distinctly define "controversy" then I suggest the possibility that it should be up to the considering 'crat, similar to the initial flipping of the bit. -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I've been so delayed in adding comment here. I confess that I was completely unaware of TRM's implication in the date linking case. It was always my impression that he resigned because of inactivity caused by real-world pressures. As to a resolution: I don't think this needs to go to ArbCom; I think that's escalating the situation. A simple RfB for TRM would be the cleanest option, and would allow the community to make a definitive ruling. Finally, I'd like to apologise for my error here; once again, it was only the product of ignorance. If it is desired, I will say more later. The previous is a brief and summary note made on a mobile phone device. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is different from other cases. TRM’s crat bit was never even on the table. Arbcom did not rule on it. Ususally when someone resigns under a cloud prior to or during a case Arbcom will make a finding to the affect of what the status of the bit is. Here, there was nothing done in regards to his crat bit as there was no crat abuse or long term unbecoming. Arbcom had a chance to rule on this if they felt the situation warranted it. IIRC I even made a post at the time that I did not think this was “under a cloud”. Therefore, this matter is not under arbcom purview in my opinion and is within the discretion of the crats. Yes, I currently wear both arbcom and crat hats. Here I have speaking for myself and not necessarily anyone else. Even the Philwelch rule says this is under crat discretion: “Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.” — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is -not- a Crat discussion. Anyone who claims that is denying the very foundation of Wikipedia - policies, guidelines, and consensus base process. The only reason that there is -any- resysopping after someone gives it up is out of courtesy, not because they -deserve- it. The provision that any cloud is not an instant resysop is a fundamental aspect of consensus and did not need ArbCom to establish it. Other projects would not dare give an individual back ops after they resigned it. There is a major amount of evidence of edit warring. That means that the user has broken one of the fundamental principles here. That user has severely harmed the community and should have deserved to be blocked. This does not need ArbCom or the Crats to determine it, as it is strictly a community wide issue and the proper role of the community to determine it. To then try and claim that it is limited to crats is something so far from reality that I don't understand how you could write out such a statement as above without laughing the whole time, as it must be a joke. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, the tone of your comments is unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The tone of Rlevse is nothing short of WikiAnarchy. ArbCom, Bureaucrats, and Admins serve at the community's pleasure. The only rule we have is consensus. There is no cabal. There are no elite groups. There are no special people who get to decide things. The power belongs to me, to you, and to everyone else. ArbCom is elected to discuss major cases across multiple pages in a process. This is simply a blatant act of edit warring that doesn't need an ArbCom case to decide and that should have resulted in a long term block but was neglected by admin to block because of the same faulty rationales used above. To then have someone dare say that a tiny group of people had the right to give tools that represent the ultimate -trust- of the community when that person has so obviously destroyed any trust they could claim to have? That is not what Wikipedia is about. My tone is righteous indignation, because I will not stand for the community to be slapped in the face by someone whose judgment appears to be biased. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Destroyed any trust they could claim to have" - Ottava, speak for yourself, but I still trust TRM, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Steve Crossin ^talk 22:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If these are the actions of a user you will trust, then there is no response that can be made. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this going to turn into a separation of powers battle, like the famous US Supreme Court case who's name I've forgotten but NYB surely knows Marbury v. Madison? Because if it's not going to be Arbs vs. Crats - The Final Showdown, then either way you do it it's relatively clear that the end result will, ultimately, be the same. If you don't let the Arbs have a quick motion now, you know someone on this page is going to challenge the status quo, or if it happens, the already-obvious result of a Crat Chat^(TM), and bring it to ArbCom anyway. Just get it over with, have the motion. And if it is going to be AvC-TFS, then hold on for a few minutes while I go make popcorn. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@Ottava: "WikiAnarchy"? You're outdoing yourself in being overly dramatic. Bits restoration is by arbcom, crats, or RFA/B, depending on the circumstances. Arbcom did not remove the bit, and I feel this issue is one of crat discretion. If you feel TRM has so lost community trust, then file an RFC or recall, which is how the community can have a bit removed without going through an RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, please let's not encourage Ottava Rima to do any of these things. Unless something unexpected comes up, it appears that this issue will be resolved in one fashion or another in short order. Thereafter, perpetuating a dispute about edit-warring that occurred several months ago would be most unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that in controversial situations, there is only one group that has the right and privilege to allow a restoration of a bit - the community. There is no need for an RfC or a recall, as he has no right to the bit to begin with. The community and only the community votes on who gains ops here. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Brad, please clarify - did you intend to state that it is okay to ignore a major edit-warring violation by a member that is in a position of trust in this community? Because your statement suggests just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't ignored. It was the subject of a finding of fact and a remedy in the Date delinking case. In my judgment as an arbitrator, no further action would have been taken even if The Rambling Man had not resigned bureaucratship for unrelated reasons. To make a further issue of it now is, in my view, unnecessary. And because you seem to have lost all sense of proportion in the matter, you should not pursue it further in any fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it disheartening that you feel that massive edit warring by someone at the level of Crat as an appropriate use of trust. Your statement above is directly against our policies and sets a horrible example at the very top. Since you have made your feelings clear, I ask you to recuse yourself from the recent motion as you have obviously crossed the thresh-hold to examine the matter in an unbiased fashion. I am very curious as to Jimbo's feelings on the matter and if he thinks that edit warring by a crat is appropriate. I know that he felt that cussing out a user by an admin was inappropriate, so I can only assume that he would not casually ignore this as you seem to have done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Although this is an odd place to ask an arbitrator to recuse, in the interest of avoiding duplication and bureaucracy, I will respond to your suggestion here. My feelings as expressed above are based primarily on information I gained in my status as an arbitrator, evaluating the evidence and surrounding circumstances in the Date delinking case. The fact that I expressed my opinion on this page as well as on the Arbitration page is of no moment. I find no conflict of interest or basis on which my impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Application denied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You conveniently left out a place for comments on the motion, so there is no other place to ask you to recuse. And it is not your background in the evidence that is why you should recuse - it is your blatant ignoring of WP:3RR and edit warring. Accusations and revelations of that are clearly a sign of impropriety, and, as quoted below, follow as a "cloud". The statement about it does not state "as determined by ArbCom". Your willful ignoring of it shows that you are not of sound judgment to weigh on the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The format of the Motions page is notoriously user-unfriendly; I ask that an arbitration clerk, or someone, set up a comments section. On the other hand, Ottava Rima, when you are pretty much alone arguing against an entire noticeboard, you should seriously consider the possibility that your position bears reconsideration. I will leave the soundness of my judgment in this and other matters for others to judge. As to you, though, I find that your consistently high level of stridency in every discussion is, to repeat a word I used earlier in the discussion, unhelpful. To say the very least. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Brad, are you seriously going to try that one? I am "alone" here, on an obscure noticeboard that mostly Crats hang out or those who are following the links from IRC channels like ##juliancolton? Hell, I know many people who would instantly agree with me on this various issue. This noticeboard never represented the community and we all know it. Brad, the only thing that is unhelpful is your constantly trying to dodge issues and rationalize corruption. If you really think the community agrees with you, set up an RfC with a simple up or down option. If you don't want to, I will. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava having opinions is part of an arbitrators job, having opinions is not a conflict of interest. This request for recusal is baseless. Chillum 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The immediate response to The Rambling Man's de-cratting request was quite clear. There was a near unanimous consensus to have him back as a Bureaucrat right then and there. Bureaucrats have discretionary powers in these matters. There is no need for a new RfB. Go back and read the consensus back in May. Kingturtle (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, its obvious where the consensus lies in this, can't we just get back to editing now? Jeni ^(talk) 01:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

After thinking more about this, it is my opinion that many of us (well, at least me )may be losing the forest for the trees here. The focus should not be on the meaning of the word "controversial" or "pending" or "cloud". Rather, what was the purpose of the PhilWelch ruling; why was it necessary for ArbCom to make that statement/finding/whatever? I think that the reason is, simply, that we want to forestall cases in which someone can try and sidestep a bit removal through voluntarily giving it up, and then claiming it back a short time later. That is the core of this issue. As such, the question becomes, was TRM ever in significant or immediate danger of losing his crat or sysop bits? I say significant, as any one of us is always in some danger of being desysopped (one wheel war away, as it were). I admit to not having reviewed the case in detail, and I know I should, but from my recollection, unlike Phil, at the time TRM relinquished the bit, he was not in significant or serious danger of having them removed from him. Contrast that to the Phil Welch case where there was the admission of abuse of blocking powers and a pretty strong sense that a desysopping was in the works. Yes, I understand that there were accusations of abuse in this case too, but I do not think that accusations, in and of themselves, directly lead to desysoppings. Accusations are thick and fast on the drama boards, of which RfAR may be queen, and many, if not most, of them end up being disregarded as unfounded or redundant or misunderstandings. As such, it is my opinion (FWIW) that in this case the bit returns to TRM are appropriate, although I would have preferred to have these discussions prior to the bit being flipped. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically to Ottava, I am not sure that you are correct in your assumption that a bit return is a "courtesy". Voluntary bit relinquishments may also be viewed similar to blocking for a "forced wikibreak". The bits are technically removed, but in actuality, it is a vacation, not a resignation. Many people, if not most, view it that way, and therefore, returning the bits is not changing the returnees status, it is reaffirming the returnees status. The community DID speak and gave consensus fot TRM to have the crat bit; why should that be ignored because he took a vacation? As for the PhilWelch ruling, I have my thoughts on that above. -- Avi (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please find the policy that claims that once you have a bit it is yours for life even if you give it up unless determined otherwise. I have already gone through and could not find such a thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's right above the one that says if you give it up voluntarily you cannot get it back . In all seriousness, Ottava, that does not require a policy. The standing procedure has always been once the community provides consensus on an editor to become a sysop or crat, it requires an act of ArbCom to remove it. Therefore, the bit removal that indicates a vacation is not a removal of the communities consensus or trust, but a technicality. If anything, I believe your position is somewhat weaker. Where do we find that because someone voluntarily give up a privilege that means the communities consensus has been altered? -- Avi (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse you? All use of tools and bits requires a policy. Policies define what you are allowed to do and how you are allowed to do it. You do not have free reign to make up your own rules. Only the community has that right. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, Ottava. However, we have something called RfA, and we have something called RfAR. We do not have anything that says that there is a term limit or a continuity requirement for ArbCom. Whether there should be a RfD (Request for De-whatevering) is a long-standing debate that this incident may help, but the fact that we do not have that means that the policy IS that the community has tacitly accepted the fact that sysop bits are granted until such point as they are forcibly removed. Maybe RfA is broken, but it is still the community's choice and included in that is RfAR being the only current method to remove the trust extended by the community. Perhaps I'm missing something; what are you seeing in policy and guideline that contradicts what I am saying? -- Avi (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There was already a desysopping - he did it himself. What is being disputed is Bureaucrats thinking they have the right to give someone access. Access is only given to those who are trusted to have the position. Violating a major policy in an extreme amount and then resigning is not something that can even be hinted at as still having trust. There was only one option here - he wants it back, he goes through RfB. Anything else has no grounds. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true Ottava. Policy restricts how to use the tools, but you are allowed to use the tools in situations policy does not cover. We are not a bureaucracy and we are allowed to use discretion and common sense. We are even permitted to ignore a rule if it prevents us from maintaining or improving Wikipedia(anyone can). Our rules describe our best practices, they don't tie our hands. Chillum 00:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? So you can block someone for liking the color purple? I don't see a policy against that. I would like to see you try and get away with it. And we all know IAR is to be an excuse to -not- block and not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you and I don't use the words "discretion" and "common sense" the same way, but no that would be a bad block. I don't see why IAR would be needed to not block, administrators are never required to use their tools. Chillum 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

IAR is what gives administrators the right to have discretion to not block. They can then look at rule breaking and see that such things as edit warring or the rest would have to be done for the better of the Wiki. To claim that it could be used to justify whimsical blocks or blocks not granted in policy is absurd and goes against the whole reason for having IAR. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about whimsical? Chillum 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, here is the policy: Wikipedia:Administrators#Removal of adminship (desysopping). The only way that the community has accepted as of now to force removal of the trust is ArbCom of Jimbo. Technical removal of the privilege is not the equivalent of a formal "desysopping". The policy seems to make that clear as well. -- Avi (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is only a force desysopping. It has nothing to do when a trouble maker has voluntarily removed their ops so it wouldn't come down to a forced desysopping. The only part that applies is this: "Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances)". Massive accusation of edit warring is not "good standing". It does not say as determined by ArbCom. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And Avraham - please realize that the heavy use of the word "may" implies that there is no guarantee. There is no "they deserve it". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But aren't you asking for a forced desysopping here? He never was desysopped. Now I understand that there was discussion about TRM's actions, but I see nowhere that indicates he lost his "good standing"? What may be appropriate, Ottava, is if you strongly believe that TRM abused his privileges, then you should consider opening an RfAR again. -- Avi (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No! And as one who rarely uses exclamation points, please notice the use here. He was not to be re-op'ed to begin with. That is the issue. And if he was "never desysopped" why is he requesting back his Cratship? Isn't that a tad odd? This is irrefutable evidence that he lost his good standing. It doesn't matter if he was formally punished or not. I am working right now on a policy proposal to make it very clear, without any confusing clauses, hiding information, etc, that anyone who leaves in such a situation needs to go through the process again if they ever want a chance to see their ops again. I am tired of the games being played here and in other situations like Aitias's. You cannot just run away after making huge policy offenses and expect to stay in power because you resigned yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the situation is unclear. I think there the crux of where you and I are disagreeing right now is what is a voluntary relinquishment considered. You view it as a desysop, I view it as a vacation. As for whether TRM gave up the bit under controversial circumstances, I think that is somewhat less immediately an issue as the very meaning of controversial circumstances is in question as can be seen from the discussions above. Regardless, if giving up the technical bit voluntarily, and not in the face of a serious or imminent chance of desysopping is NOT considered a desysop, the point would be moot. So, I agree with you that clarification of these issues is necessary, but as the current state of policy and guidelines stand, I do not think TRM could have been refused the bit back, as even the findings may not have resulted in a desysopping. For what it is worth, Jayjg was found to have edit warred and he was not desysopped either. I'm not an Arbitor, nor do I play one on the radio. Also, I tend to stay away from drama boards, so maybe I'm not the best judge of who is in or not in good standing. As I said above, perhaps the community will take this opportunity to clear up a lot of the inherent ambiguity; perhaps not. -- Avi (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I note the exclamation points. No one is saying that the matter is not serious, Ottava, but I am not sure that the evidence you brought would be accepted as irrefutable; that is up to the community to decide, not you or I, and as of now, the community's only stated option for showing it has removed trust is by filing an RfAR with a desysop finding, a Jimbo removal, or the PhilWelch ruling, which is ambiguous enough that it started this entire mess (and I still think the finding as written can be construed as self-contradictory according to Brad's explanation (see above)). Yes, it's a mess, but until we have something better, I do not think we can go against the community's acceptance of the Admin policy. -- Avi (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't view it as a desysop. I view it as a dereliction of duty in the face of potential court martial. Such an action is verification that the bond of trust has been broken, and ops are only there based on trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava,

Read Wikipedia:Administrators#Voluntary removal, which states "Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request their administrator status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat." That's been there since April 2008, added by a Mediation Committee member. Bits can be re-granted and can be done so without drama, as explained in return of access levels. As I said previously in this thread, there was substantial opposition to TRM giving up his Bureaucrat reins. Nothing in his actions since then has put any of that in jeopardy, so there are grounds for a Bureaucrat to follow policy and grant his request. You want the community to decide here, and they already did in May.

As for your blocking question, if someone keeps writing "I like purple" atop The Ghost of a Flea in spite of a progression of suitable warnings, damn right you can block him for liking the color purple. Kingturtle (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle, please look above and see that I quoted the same section. Please also note that I emphasized the use of the word "may". "May" does not equate in the English language to "you are guarenteed something". It's closest equivalent would be "might". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, Kingturtle, now that you've mentioned that, someone might go right ahead and do just that. 9_9 Steve Crossin ^talk 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, If you want to know what Jimbo would do, you should ask him directly. He doesn't frequent BN, and in fact he's never even posted here. Do not assume anything he might say. And please do not use your imagination of what he might say as part of your argument. That ploy holds no water. The "What Jimbo might say" argument is one step below the "What Jimbo said" argument. Nor does the ploy of COI accusations hold water. Kingturtle (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is preparing a motion and statement on the matter. Jimbo has previously stated that ArbCom decisions are superior to anything he can do 99 times out of 100, he essentially never means to overrule them and any decision he makes can be overturned by them. Since anything he can do would be a) stepping on their toes and b) immediately repealable if it runs counter to their motion, "what would jimbo do" is most probably "sweet FA". Ironholds (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's going to turn this into a featured article? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it - he doesn't really care about such things. Ironholds (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I had assumed that "FA" in this context actually stood for something very different altogether, including a word I don't usually use on Wikipedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of pummeling an expired equine, let's be clear there are two different issues here. First, is there an Arbitration ruling that prevents TRM from being reinstated without Arbcom approval? There is nothing specific in the date delinking case, but the Philwelch case may apply. Second, if Arbcom is not a barrier--either because there is no ruling in place or because they specifically grant approval--then the decision is left to the bureaucrat's discretion. They have an obligation to be aware of potential issues, to discuss them, and to give an explanation if one is called for. In fact, I think it might be a good idea to have a 24 waiting period on all reinstatement requests, to allow time for objections to be considered. But (and now I'm talking mostly to Ottava, I think) if the bureaucrats consider the arguments against reinstatement but grant reinstatement anyway, that is within their discretion. Gross abuses of discretion can be taken to arbitration, of course, but Arbcom has in the past pretty much declined to interfere with the bureaucrats. Thatcher 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See below re: 24 hour wait time; it deserves its own section for comment. -- Avi (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion

As if the rest wasn't already my opinion above. Many may know that when I am not in my nice DC office with a wonderful stable internet access, I rely on satellite internet. Many may also know that such internet connections hate rain, especially thunderstorms. So yeah, I am a tad behind in the discussion.

My thoughts are this - it does not matter what ArbCom rules, as ArbCom actually gave Aitias ops back after doing this same thing and it took an RfC to blatantly ask for Aitias's removal. In both cases, it should never have to come down to it. Wikipedia:Administrators#Voluntary removal is very clear - if there isn't any controversy on the resignation or disappearance, then there is no problem. If there is any problem, then they are not to be given ops back automatically. Why is that? Because ops, especially at the Crat level, are given only to those who can be trusted. When an admin, any admin, happens to break a policy then the community's trust in them is removed. Yes, there is no way for the community to effectively desysop. However, that clause gives the community the protection against such admin when they voluntarily resign as part of their fleeing from any punishment.

The community is what determines trust. If anyone here believes in consensus, then an RfB or an RfC is the only suitable option. If anyone here truly believes that he is still trusted by the community, then the above is the only way to prove it. Consensus is ruler over Wikipedia. Not me, not ArbCom, not even a group of Crats. Lets not forget that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

TRM went through a successful RfB, Ottava, and there was nothing in any policies that indicated that trust was lost? -- Avi (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You honestly believe that there is the same level of trust with the user after they edit warred on so many pages? You may be right, but I would like to hear from the community on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not necessarily the same level of trust; but not enough to remove the bit per WP:ADMIN. -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He resigned. There is no "removing the bit". There is a "restoring the bit". He clearly fails the controversial circumstances, and the trust issue is great enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion

I've offered a motion for the arbitrators at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions to confirm that The Rambling Man is eligible for restoration to bureaucratship without a new RfB (thereby confirming today's action). The motion also encourages any editors concerned that our policies and procedures in this area may be unfair or unclear to convene a community discussion and seek to draft a better policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The motion now has enough arbitrator votes to pass, although it will probably be held open for a bit longer in case any other arbitrators wish to vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration from Anonymous Dissident

I apologise for my curtness earlier on; I was unable to make a more substantial comment due to technical limitations. As I mentioned previously, my decision to rebureaucrat TRM was done in ignorance. I had no idea about the arbitration case, and it was always my impression that TRM had resigned due to inactivity – an impression that was "confirmed" in my mind by TRM's words in making his request: "Some of the issues that prompted this are now over, some real life issues are not. However, I have more on-wiki time now then I have had for a long while...". It was an error, and I apologise for it – but believe me when I say it was ingenuous. Having read the entirety of this discussion, as well as other relevant pages, it seems to me the best course of action is simply to move forward. I don't think TRM should be required to go through RfB. Though it would be the optimal solution, in that it would absolve his bureaucratship from any doubt and would give the whole affair back to the community, I don't think it should be required. TRM had a clean record as a bureaucrat during his time, and that was never in question. For this reason, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially since his resignation was met with such an outpouring of support. Thanks. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What was "clean" about his individualized and team-oriented edit warring record? I'm sorry, but the evidence indicates that there is no "doubt" about his disruptive activities, and it's unlikely that he would pass an RfB now. Tennis expert (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident is 100% clear when he says "TRM had a clean record as a bureaucrat" . As you are clearly exceptionally intelligent it's impossible to misconstrue it without either having an enormous axe to grind and enjoying perpetuating the drama or making some error, perhaps through being tired. I'll assume good faith and bid you sweet dreams. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am watching this with much glee

By now the person-hours wasted by Wikipedia volunteer staff (admins, bureaucrats, arbitrators) on this nothingness of a complaint surely add up to many days. I have no pity. The entire "date delinking case" from start to finish was a steaming pile, starting with the lunatic allegations by the complainants unsupported by fact, continuing with the incomprehensible acceptance of the case by ArbCom, then the abuse of the request by the lead arbitrator to ram through greater powers for himself and his fellow Mediawiki developers while cynically copying the lunatic allegations into his proposed decisions as though they were real, and the bizarre and totally disproportionate punishments meted out to innocents. A very small part of the carnage has been cleaned up in the meantime, but much of the damage is permanent and irreversible. This is the combined result of the wrong structures and the wrong people in positions of power. Carry on. Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're maintaining your sense of perspective about this. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have no pity? You don't mind the incredible amount of wasted time that could instead go towards improving articles? I personally find it very disheartening the amount of time and energy that is expended around here on things so far removed from articles. It's a vicious cycle, where the non article activities build upon each other and become and end in themselves. Any attempts to point out that non article activities should be reduced as much as possible are met with responses varying from confusion to derision. But it's been a long time since the majority of active editors on the community pages have stopped to think whether their actions are really helping articles, which are, in the end, the only reason we are here. Instead they incessantly argue about things that are relatively unimportant and make the whole place less fun. The the trajectory of the improvement of the project would be vastly improved if more editors stopped to think if they really are improving the project before making each edit. - Taxman ^Talk 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, Goodmorningworld has above repeated allegations that John Vandenberg is a mediawiki developer and used the date delinking case as a vehicle for other purposes. To be specific, Goodmorningworld has said: "the abuse of the request by the lead arbitrator to ram through greater powers for himself and his fellow Mediawiki developers". This seems to trace back to the allegations made by Tony1 on 1 May 2009 here. See especially the bit down at the bottom, marked 'Formal questions posed', where Tony1 uses the phrase "As a WP developer". The full discussion is here, where it can be seen that Werdna says "John Vandenberg [...] has not done any MediaWiki development as far as I am aware." and John Vandenberg said: "As Werdna has said, I am not a MediaWiki developer". Despite this, Goodmorningworld later (27 May 2009) said here that "It is virtually impossible to avoid a conflict of interest as a MediaWiki developer who has dabbled in the very mechanism that has been at dispute." This is an example of Goodmorningworld continuing to allege that John Vandenberg is a MediaWiki developer. The post above (13 August 2009) is the most recent example of where Goodmorningworld continues to make such allegations, and this is not acceptable. Continuing to make such allegations after they have been answered is deeply damaging, and should, in my view, lead to sanctions being imposed, though as I'm recused, I'll leave it to others to decide on that. For now, I've asked Goodmorningworld (on his talk page) to strike the part of what he said (which I quoted above). Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What's sad is that so many editors wasted years warring over formatting issues instead of improving article content, which led to so many others (uninvolved admins, arbs, etc) having to waste their time on handling issues that editors should have been able to work out on their own. This is sadly more and more often the case--en wiki is a cesspool of bad user behavior, THAT is what is sad. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed, or forgot, where Vandenberg says that he is not a Mediawiki developer. I was told otherwise, however, I'll accept that his representation about his status is accurate. (Has he never programmed anything for Wikipedia or one of its sister sites?) The rest of my post stands, but consider the two words "his fellow" above as struck. Instead of calling for sanctions on me, as Carcharoth does above, he needs to start double quick on putting ArbCom's house in order. Get rid of Vandenberg as a first step, now. Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

While complaining about an inaccuracy of mine, Carcharoth introduces another himself. Above, by writing "an example of Goodmorningworld continuing to allege that John Vandenberg is a MediaWiki developer", referring to this post of mine on May 27th here, he insinuates that I had made the same claim before then, which is not true. Also, I was not a part of the earlier (May 1st) discussion he references, in which Tony described Vandenberg as a WP developer. Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher has suggested implementing a 24-hour waiting period before restoring rights that were voluntarily relinquished without prejudice. My initial reaction is that it is unnecessary, as the majority of these restorations are completely innocuous and we should not impose an unnecessary delay. For the times it is not so simple, it is incumbent on the bureaucrats to be aware of issues, and should they make a mistake, to either inform the recipient to refrain from using the bit until the issue is resolved or flag down a steward. As the latter situation is very rare (I believe this is the first?) I think it is an unnecessary impediment to enforce a waiting period; but, as always, I reserve the right to change my mind if suitably convinced. -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the 'crats should decide if and if so how long of a discussion period is needed. I think that they should still be able to simply act on their discretion, that is what we picked them for, but that they should be encouraged to seek discussion when the case is not clear to them. Chillum 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that people don't know what they don't know. Every reinstatement request looks harmless to someone who does not know the back story. If TRM had said clearly and precisely, "I resigned during the Date De-linking arbitration case. At the close of the case I was admonished for edit warring but no formal statement was made on my 'crat status" wouldn't that at least have provoked some internal discussion, and a more full explanation of why it was discounted when deciding to reinstate? And wouldn't it be better to allow some time for such discussion before promotion rather than after? But, it's only a suggestion. Thatcher 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

However, for every TRM there are multiple WJBscribes. Personally, when a resysop request comes in for someone with whom I am not familiar, I like to go to the logs and check the RfA, the removal, and then try and find the request for removal on Meta as well (which is why I don't do many of them, I've been edit conflicted/preempted a few times b/c of the checking :) ). In this case, were that done, I'm pretty sure the issue would have arisen, and would have been addressed in the restore reasoning. -- Avi (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That would add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy, IMO. We need to have more faith in our bureaucrats; the RfB process is such that only the editors with the best judgment are elected; in short, they know what they're doing, and they know when to apply discretion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But the bureaucrats make mistakes too, Julian. Even AD admits that the recratting WITHOUT at least commenting was as a result of forgetting about the TRM issue - which was an error. Not malicious, but still the TRM RfAR should have been mentioned and the reason for recratting (which personally I believe was the proper interpretation of the mess of ambiguous rulings that we have) should have referenced as to why it was not an issue. So Thatcher is correct that an error was made here and is interested in preventing such in the future. As of now, though, I think the preventative measure is too heavy (as I've said above). -- Avi (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with your opinions, Avi. As far as I know, this is a first. I think that we're going overboard by delaying a resysopping by 24 hours because of a one-time event. Of all the dozens of resysoppings that have happened here, almost none were very controversial. There has never been a time when a crat resysoppeda controversial user. And as was said above, the resysopping was done when it was likely that AD hadn't really seen the ArbCom case. I'm reiterating what someone said earlier: The whole "resigning during ArbCom case" was a lot foggy, and it's understandable that one can miss the whole skidoo. (X! · talk)  · @183  ·  03:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think a 24 hour period would necessarily solve anything nor be necessary. My standard practice is to ask the user if there were any potentially controversial issues surrounding their resignation. Their answer tells me a lot and I also go through their talk page history and contributions before the time that the logs show their bit was removed. Mostly though I find simply asking gets the information needed as to whether anything needs to be looked into further or not. I point it out because it probably would have worked in this case and I think it's a good general rule. I actually feel a lot of pressure to make the right move in re-granting rights (a certain amount of liability if anything goes wrong) and I came up with that as a way to reduce the feeling that I had to uncover every edit and action the editor ever made before re-granting the right. It also tends to take a bit of time and causes a few more people to see the page pop up on their watchlists. That probably solves all of what a 24 hour period could hope to. - Taxman ^Talk 13:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I like to go to the logs and check the RfA, the removal, and then try and find the request for removal on Meta as well (which is why I don't do many of them, I've been edit conflicted/preempted a few times b/c of the checking :) ). In this case, were that done, I'm pretty sure the issue would have arisen, and would have been addressed in the restore reasoning

Taxman, My standard practice is to ask the user if there were any potentially controversial issues surrounding their resignation. Their answer tells me a lot and I also go through their talk page history and contributions before the time that the logs show their bit was removed.

Agreed that such diligence would largely eliminate the need for a waiting period. However (and I am reluctant to cast aspersions on anyone but there seems to be no other explanation) such diligence was not used in this case. Thatcher 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I was not diligent enough in examining TRM's situation. That concession was, I hope, made clear in my statement above; and I am apologetic for my lack of thoroughness. For the record, I guarantee more meticulous treatment in future – no-one wants to see a drama such as this unfold again so needlessly. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour wait is a good idea. there is no rush... However I think this is the 'crats call... I highly recommend it, I hope they do it, I strongly urge them to, but at this time it's not something that should be mandated from outside. If there were a large number of bobbled restores, then maybe? ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think taking more time in responding is a good idea, but if a whole day is found to be too much of a lag, what about just requiring more than one crat to opine before a repromotion is done (or not done)? Surely two or three crats looking at the same thing couldn't miss a beat. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a day would be better. It's possible the bureaucrats involved might have no idea of controversial circumstances (simply because they weren't around then), but someone else might, so giving them a chance to speak up would be good. A standard 24 hour waiting period sounds good to me. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What percentage of cases where we give the bit back to those that resigned it involve even the remotest hint of controversy? I don't want anybody to do the analysis to find a number, but the point is it is relatively small and to my mind doesn't justify making people that resigned with absolutely no controversy wait for 24 hours. There's work to be done in the meantime. No one supporting the 24hr period has commented on the method I mentioned above. I think we could make that the standard practice and I propose the benefit will be similar to a 24hr waiting period without the cost. Further I'd just mention that if someone's contributions/talk page/admin logs over the period before their resignation are very extensive that could simply be noted and that it may take some more time to review. Overall I'm not against some time given to let people chime in, but I am against set time periods and rules when they aren't really needed. - Taxman ^Talk 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that no-one should really mind waiting for 24 hours to get a bit back. Where is the urgency? If someone has been away for weeks or months, what difference does 24 hours make? The important thing is that the bureaucrats take the time to do the checks that Taxman refers to above, and to allow a period of time for others to comment. Also, I would hope that the bureaucrats take the time to see how active the user has been between giving up the bit and asking for it back. If the first edit (or one of the first edits) on returning after several months (this was not the case here) is to ask for a bit back, my first thought would be "how do we know this is really you?". But then I'm suspicious like that sometimes. Do the bureaucrats ever ask for people to e-mail or otherwise confirm who they are? This applies to renamings as well. There was a case near the beginning of this year, where I came across an admin who had been renamed (sometime in 2008 I think) immediately on returning after a 2 or 3 year break. That made things complicated, and I wondered at the time what level of scrutiny and verification had been carried out. If any bureaucrat wants details of that case, please e-mail me. Carcharoth (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory waits are unnecessary bureacracy. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rapid actions lack scrutiny. Anyone who is not prepared to wait while bureaucrats carry out some checks or ask some questions about the bit restoration (that is the scrutiny bit) should question why they need the bit back so urgently. The ideal procedure in my view is that a bureaucrat answer a restoration request with a note saying "I'm checking this out, please be patient". That avoids other bureaucrats jumping in and carrying out the bit restoration prematurely. Once a few simple checks have been made (including verifying identity if the user in question has been away for a long period of time), and if it was a public request, that time has been allowed for public comment, then go ahead. But skipping those steps is a dereliction of the duty of care that bureaucrats have. How bureaucrats deal with private requests for bit restorations is up to them. But public requests are presumably made to allow public scrutiny. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making a blanket assumption. I only restore a bit if I know the person well or have checked them out myself. If that ends up being what you consider rapid, so be it. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I request to have my bit restored precisely 1 minute before/if the 24-hour wait policy takes effect. Thank you! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe and for the record, I see no consensus for a fixed mandatory wait time. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A number of us have participated in the RfB. Could one or more of the few remaining active Crats indicate they'll be around and eligible to close it over the weekend? --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it will be obvious enough that even those who commented could close it at this point. A little wait never hurt anyone either. Prodego ^talk 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not opined. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, the whole 'those who commented should not close' thing is a bit useless IMO. There is nothing stopping someone with a strong opinion from waiting to close, instead of commenting. At least if they commented you know what their personal opinion is. Prodego ^talk 15:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We're bureaucrats. The bureaucracy must be appeased! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

True, Prodego. But sometimes the appearance of fairness is just as important as the fairness itself, if you know what I mean. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm on record as agreeing with you that most COI panics are a lot of humbug, but as a practical matter it's certainly advisable to avoid the appearance of conflict when possible, in the interest (if nothing else) of not losing one's wiki-job. — Dan | talk 04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Total agreement on the COI comment. Since this isn't an emergency, though, we don't need to bend the rule at all; it's best to follow it if only because it'll cause less drama. ;) At the very least, I pledged in my RfB that I never would, so I'd prefer to keep my word (can't speak for everyone else, though). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be around. Kingturtle (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose in a 100% consensus it would seem futile, but it is important for us to beconsistent with our RfX recusals, even in RfXs that seem clear and uncontroversial. That way there is never a question of COI for closing crats. Kingturtle (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I might be around to close it, and I haven't participated in it at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I anticipate being available around the time it is scheduled to end and could close it (or participate in a discussion were the outcome unclear). WJBscribe (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So that makes four of us; that should be sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note from Julian's RfB that per Taxman and the 'crat chat discussion page, 'crats that have opined may contribute to discussions (crat chats) but should refrain from making the final call (and, of course, should state what their opinion on the RfX page was prior to entering the discussion). -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to say that there is no rule that prevents crats who have opined from contributing to any discussion, rather than that it is always OK. It is up to them to decide whether it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances. It is always a good idea to consider not only bias, but also appearance of bias... WJBscribe (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Take away the tools guys. Thanks. Law _{type! snype?} 07:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats cannot remove administrator userrights, it must be requested at m:SRP. Thank you for your contributions and efforts and good luck. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Please see m:SRP. I'm sorry to hear that you're disillusioned, Law. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday bureaucrat Anonymous Dissident closed the RfA of user:7 with the following summary:

This was certainly a close one. A number of the oppositional arguments were not properly supported by evidence. Select others opposed solely because they disagreed with the candidate's views on such matters as inclusion. This can be a weak argument, especially if not explained in any great detail. However, the CSD-related concerns were evidently seen to be problematic by a significant portion of the participants, and they swung the consensus (or lack thereof).

The tally of the RfA was 66 Supports, 37 Opposes, 12 Neutrals.

Curiously missing from AD's summary was an examination of the Support arguments for being properly supported by evidence.

Here are some of the Supports that he/she had nothing to say about.

1. Support Mikaey, Devil's advocate 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Go, 7! Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support because my house is full of Sevens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (however, points to NYB for being a TMBG fan)
4. Support Seems fine. LittleMountain5 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Provisional support--ROT9 (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Support I cant see no problems and the nomination was really excellent. AtheWeatherman 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good to me. hmwitht 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Strongest possible uber support - You appear to be the best candidate I've seen on here for a long time, and I wish you well! Jeni ^(talk) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
11.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, 7. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not criticizing the editors whose Support contributions are quoted above.

What I would like to know is, why were only Opposes scrutinized and Supports allowed to clock in unmolested?

And can a tally of 66 Supports, 37 Opposes, 12 Neutrals really be called "a close one"? Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support is the default position; if you support, you assert that "I agree with the nomination", so any further rationale is a bonus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is assumed supports are agreeing with what the nomination says. Why would such a support need to fluff out their comment just repeating what the nom says? It's pointless. On the other hand, an opposer is disagreeing with the nomination, but no reasoning has been given, anywhere. So it's reasonable to ask opposers to give more of a rationale. Majorly talk 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is such a nagging problem. An empty support essentially says "I agree with the nomination statement," but it's not just that. It's also saying that the !voter doesn't find anything alarming with the candidate, and they are ready to be handed the tools (in their opinion, of course). A !voter opposing a candidate says that they believe the candidate is not ready for a certain reason. We ask "Why are you opposing?" because we need to know if there is a legitimate concern over giving the candidate the tools. If you don't explain you're oppose !vote, other voters won't know why you think the candidate isn't ready, and will likely !support. If you're really opposing a candidate, it makes sense to add a rationale, because others may agree with you. If you don't add a rationale, it's highly unlikely for someone to come along and oppose per your pretty signature. iMatthew ^talk at 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• This RfA was quite below the accepted threshold of ~70%. I could have said nothing in my closure, given that a promotion was really out of the question here. Even so, I felt compelled to make a note of the way I had read the RfA, and of how I had interpreted the comments of the opposition. The RfA was "close" in that a certain portion of the opposition had, in my eyes, weaker arguments that were assigned less weight. My opinion on the nature of RfA support is similar to those expressed above. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure AD was absolutely correct to take the opposers to task for having weak arguments, while not being concerned by any "empty" supports; as others have pointed out, it's silly to force every supporter to effectively rephrase the nominating statement, whereas it's far more important for opposers to verbalize their position (if for no other reason than to allow the candidate to correct their behavior accordingly). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• The practical effect here is that supporters can participate in a strict vote while opposers participate in a !vote discussion. That may be good, bad or indifferent but it's an odd asymmetry. RxS (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  Opposers can still effectively vote if their statement is "per X" where X has a well-reasoned and acceptable argument, just like supporters votes are considered "per nom" statements. Ironholds (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  True enough, but any "oppose per" vote is still subject to discounting by a 'crat. We all think that our arguments are well reasoned but they still need to pass though a bureaucrats judgment which makes it not quite a strict vote. Support votes are never subject to discounting. Not saying this happens alot but it's still asymmetrical to some degree. RxS (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  You are mistaken about support !votes. If someone is really new (or otherwise suspicious), or is citing bogus rationales (a blank support is valid, but "I like puppies!" is not), it will get tossed out. The "oppose per" !votes are still subject to discounting because they're dependent on another editor's comments; if those comments turn out to be bogus, subsequent !votes are discounted as well (being bogus is quite distinct from the original !voter deciding the strike their own comments because of a change of heart; that has no impact on the "per X" !votes). The same is true for supporters; if, let's say, hmwith said "Support I really like what they did with this article" and five people specifically cited her !vote in theirs, but later (in the course of the RfA) it turns out that the article being referenced was a copyvio, all six supports would be weighed very differently (though that'd be likely to happen anyway by everyone suddenly striking their supports).
  TLDR version: never say never. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So a blank Support vote is considered to have inherited the reasonableness of the nominator's statement but a blank Oppose is not, and even a reasoned Oppose can be subjected to scrutiny and discounted? Have to agree with RxS, that sounds asymmetrical. I appreciate some of the reasoning behind it but it still makes me uncomfortable. I have never seen Support votes being subjected to equal scrutiny and I have seen some real doozies. In a recent RfA, one person said "Support, User:X will take us into the next century"(!) No one objected or discounted the vote. Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Was the RFA a clear promote, by any chance? There are plenty of completely worthless opposes on RFAs that have such a massive level of support that it is not worth the time to discount the vote. The general rule is that a bureaucrat will only go to the trouble of explicitly stating "this vote was discounted" if the fact that the named votes are discounted would have an effect on the outcome of the RFA. --Deskana, (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been a support vote discounted? Discounting oppose votes is relatively common, but I don't ever remember a support vote being discounted outside of IPs and banned users (that was mentioned anyway). Bringing up hypothetical instances where a support vote might be discounted is fine but it doesn't really mean anything if it's never happened. Like I said, good, bad or indifferent, I'm not commenting at all on this closure in particular. RxS (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, the whole thing is a charade. Only oppose votes get ignored. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mikhailov Kusserow, for more information about my RfA rationale, see User:hmwith/rfa. "Looks good to me" means that I've researched his contribs, seen his answers, and judged his interaction with other users, and that everything looks fine. He looks like a good candidate to become an admin, as there are no problems. It basically just means I trust him. I support anyone getting the tools unless I don't have enough faith that they're won't abuse the tools. I don't understand the confusion, but let me know on my talk page if you have further concerns or questions about my reasoning, and I will gladly elaborate. Thanks, hmwitht 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with this closure. The consensus was clear on not promoting. As others mentioned, even a purely numerical count gives a "no promotion". The only concern that seems to be somewhat valid here is use of the phrasing "This was certainly a close one." As AD explained what he meant (many of the oppose arguments were very weak or non-existent), I don't see an issue. Many of the oppose arguments (such as they were) were very weak or non-existent. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mused openly about experimenting with asking opposers who give no rationale what's on their minds. What shoots that down is that Malleus and Goodmorningworld have a point; it's really not entirely fair to do something that could be perceived as leaning on opposers without balancing that in some way. On the other hand, I agree with just about everyone else that it would be silly to make supporters re-state the nom positions, whereas you don't even know what it is the opposers are saying if they don't give a rationale. I do think there's a problem with some oppose votes not being counted simply because we didn't give them sufficient clue as to what we're looking for, but I don't have any solution that's better than what we do now, which is to proceed with lots of discussion and very few rules at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Looks good to me" is not the same as no rationale. It's saying that the history/contribs/actions of the user look good and the user should be promoted. It doesn't have to be long to get across the same point. hmwitht 00:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see the point of this section. I'm trying not to be rude, but this is like coming to DRV with a deletion decision where you don't want to change the outcome but instead just want to mince words about the close. One of the structural advantages for the candidate in the rfa is the presumption of rationale for a supporting vote. this wasn't planned out in advance and isn't enshrined in policy. We have a number of justifications/rationalizations for why it might be so, but it is probably the case that people don't like opposing comments. No one wants to get up and say "person XYZ is a shitheel for the following reasons..." We are social creatures and the fear of embarrassing someone else or being negative in a room full of positive sounding people is strong. that said, there isn't anything that will be done about it save radically remaking how RfA works. I agree with dan above that hassling opposing votes without a rationale is pointless and myopic, but all I can do is not hassle them or tell other people not to hassle them (a response which by its nature occurs after the first person has pointed out that "RfA is not a vote"). Protonk (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The point seem to me to be that all votes should be scrutinized, not just opposes. And especially in a close nomination, it's appropriate to consider the arguments made by those supporting as well as those opposing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand this was the substance of the complaint, but my question was searching for the broad purpose of the discussion. RfA is a vote. Between a relatively strict range, crats have some discretion to weigh in, but prior evidence doesn't indicate that the discretion gets used all that often. More to the point, once an RfA reaches the discretion range, opposes become much more valuable than supports at the margin. Honestly I think that if opposes can't push an RfA numerically out of the discretion range then they should have some compelling argument in order to make the crat choose to not promote the candidate. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

May I have the tools back please? I may need them to tackle HarveyCarter sockpuppets more effectively. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 17#DrKiernan on this. There might be some people claiming that DrKiernan resigned under a cloud although I'd personally disagree with them (since even the user he was in conflict with does not think so). Regards SoWhy 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Having at looked at the circumstances, I think it appropriate to restore DrKiernan's administrator access. I am not persuaded that a single inappropriate admin action is sufficient to amount to "controversial circumstances", unless a very strict interpretation is taken which I do not think community consensus supports. There was no pending user conduct action against DrKiernan when he resigned (either RfC or RfArb). Also, given the short amount of time that has elapsed, I do not think that anyone is any less able to make a complaint about DrKiernan now than at the time. In other words, there are no consequences that his resignation has allowed him to "escape" from. Finally, I note that the "victim" of the inappropriate admin action has stated that she would support a request by DrKiernan to have his rights restored. Accordingly, in all the circumstances, I am returning the tools to DrKiernan. WJBscribe (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse this decision, FWIW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, so do I. Glad to see you back in action. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse and kudos to user:Sarah777 for her gracious response. Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please, change my nickname (users name) to "Oleg Snetkov-DIRIGENT". Thanks!!! OLEG-DIRIGENT (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You can request that your username be changed at Changing Usernames; there's a short process that you must go through before your username can be changed. Happy editing, FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 09:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help FastLizard4!OLEG-DIRIGENT (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Some crats (like WJBscribe (talk · contribs) and bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)) cite the successful RFA when they assign admin rights to a user, which is very helpful to find the successful RFA on a later date, especially for users who had multiple RFAs. Unfortunately, not all crats do so, which means in those cases one has to search for it. Thus I wanted to request that a.) all crats cite the successful RFA when promoting someone to administrator and b.) this was made a part of the instructions on WP:CRAT. What do you think? Regards SoWhy 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and made a note about referencing the RfX. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This should always be done, much like citing an XfD discussion when deleting something. Majorly talk 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was renaming Marlith today and the rename timed out and his edits were not transferred to the new account name. I have seen this happen a fair number of times in the past with Brandon's userpage, Xeno's userrights, and Jayvdb's edits not being re-attributed to their new accounts. In casual conversations with technical people, it seems the issue has something to do with the job queue being high at the moment of renaming and failing to re-attribute. I wonder if this is something we should establish some rules of thumb for such as: "If user has more than 10,000 edits, then only rename when the job queue is under 50,000 and you are on a high speed, high quality connection." Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question: if it fails, is there a way to restart the process? I had the same issue :) -- Luk ^talk 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not for bureaucrats at present, I suppose it might be achievable were Extension:User Merge and Delete enabled. I see it's now described as "stable" but there are a lot of implications of account merges for GFDL etc (and I presume it's non reversible) so crats would need to now exactly what they were doing... WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A developer like Werdna can usually fix it on the backend of the database, but relying on the devs for simple name changes seems like a waste of resources if we can find a workaround. MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this happen on renames with as few edits as 5,000. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a bug open on this? WJBscribe (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reattributing edits - from my alt account. Majorly talk 13:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing the actual reason, I would hypothesize that the merge accounts feature is not turned on either because of SUL issues or because the devs are afraid that rogue users would trick crats into merging with accounts that weren't their own (say by claiming to be a returning retired user) and that the feature would therefore lead to license violations. MBisanz ^talk 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind what a rogue crat could do with it... It might be worth asking the devs to comment on whether, if there was a consensus for the feature being enabled on enwiki, they would be willing to do it. Then we could see whether people think the benefit is worth the risk. Much as I realise it must be a little frustrating, edits being split between several accounts isn't a massive problem. WJBscribe (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Drat, WP:Developers' noticeboard is a redlink. I'll try to scare one up later. I suppose one concern is that an account merge, unlike any other actions done with userrights, is irreversible. Even histmerges can be undone with selective deletion/undeletion and renames can always be undone by moving accounts around, but that is probably something for the community to debate. I suppose WT:CHU is too small of a venue to hold the discussion, would WP:VPR or a dedicated RFC subpage be a better place to hold it, assuming the devs say it is possible? MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Account merges would be extremely useful, e.g. for those who don't understand that CHU exists and merely create new usernames. One question I'd have (not knowing the backstage intricacies): would account merges muff up CU data? → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a merge would be an interesting endeavor, but it must be completely reversible in order to be implemented. Otherwise, it's my view that the potential dangers would override the costs. bibliomaniac15 05:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at mw:Extension:User Merge and Delete and mw:Extension:Deleteuser seem to indicate that the existing software only performs irreversible merges. Given that such major re-codings tend to take forever, we are back at my original point of how to handle renames of users with a large number of edits, do we warn them and try to time the job queue/connection speed or just leave it the way it is? MBisanz ^talk 06:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

From a technical point of view it would be pretty hard and require some database structure changes to make user merges reversible and even then it might be possible to make it irreversible by doing multiple merges/deletions. --Chris 09:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I can think immediately of how to do it: a single extra table that maps one userid to another. Whenever the software gets a userid, it runs it through that table to see if it gets mapped to another id. "Merging" a user then becomes trivial - add a row to that table - and unmerging is as simple as deleting the same row. Now I think about it, you could even have different maps for different items: you could merge the watchlists or preferences only, for instance, and thereby make alternate accounts more convenient. AFAIK, however, there isn't anything written that works in this fashion, and the cache structure would need a huge amount of optimisation to allow it to run on the big WMF wikis. But it's definitely doable without any changes to the existing database schema. (also)Happy‑melon 11:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That would basically be adding one hack onto another and would likely be only slightly more appealing to the sysadmins/lead developers than an irreversible merge. The proper fix would be to make it so that user names are only stored in the user table, rather than in the revision, archive, image, logging, and recentchanges tables. This is why renames are so broken, because it has to update thousands of rows in half a dozen tables rather than just switching the user_name. Mr.Z-man 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with that thought for renames, but how does that facilitate user merging? (also)Happy‑melon 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really, but this discussion was started because renaming is broken and edits are not being re-attributed. If that were fixed, there would be little need for merging. Mr.Z-man 23:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"User Merge and Delete" will never be enabled until it has an undo function. And even then, even if an undo function were implemented, I think it's pretty doubtful to see it enabled on WMF wikis. I see parallels to the discussion about deleting unused accounts; the entire concept of deleting accounts is anathema to most of the older developers / sysadmins, at least that's my impression from the comments I've read. (And of course there's nothing to say that the current problems with Renameuser don't extend to User Merge and Delete.)

WJB: There are a number of bugs filed about various specific rename failures on specific wikis. I don't believe there is a generic bug about Renameuser sucking, but I haven't looked thoroughly.

Happy-melon: You say you wouldn't need to change the existing database schema, but you also talk about adding an extra table. You've lost me. Maybe you meant you that you wouldn't have to change any of the current tables? --MZMcBride (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, and that generally qualifies as "not a blocker to deployment on WMF wikis". We've added (IIRC) four new tables this year alone, and that's to core software. As I expect this would be implemented as an extension (if at all), it makes even less sense to require changes to core tables. Having extensions create their own database tables is very common, as you know. (also)Happy‑melon 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Update

Just happened again, and the job queue was only 3,000 when I did the rename on a highspeed connection for someone with 12,000 edits. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. How does being on a 'high speed, high quality connection' have anything to do with this? The user is renamed and the edits reattributed server side, not client side. — neuro^(talk) 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I think it does, to the extent that a failed rename times out and gets a blue screen or another message. I don't know how I could test it, but it does seem that the crat maintaining a connection with the WMF server is a critical part of the rename working. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Law got adminship back per request; nothing more to do. @harej 02:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I need my tools back. This article is fucked. Law type! snype? 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I'm serious it's fucked. No really it's fucked bad. OK it's not for me it's for a friend. OK it's for me. OK, not directly for me, but for my girlfriend. Let's go Crat Pack. Toolz Please. Law type! snype? 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (not objecting, but) What tool did you need to unfuck it? –xenotalk 16:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Hmm, if an editor has a girlfriend but is requesting access to their own tool so something can get unfucked, sounds like there's a breakup coming on. :) (Oh, and my use of the <small> tag is purely in relation to formatting of text! :) </blue cmt>:) Franamax (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)  Done Per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request, and m:Steward requests/Permissions/2009-08#Law@enwiki, there is no issue with restoring admin access, so I have done so. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)  Bureaucrat note: Note that the reason is unimportant; as long as the admin in question gave up the tools in good standing, we restore them if said admin changes his or her mind. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, as I said, I have no objection at all, he resigned the tools in clear weather... but my curiousity lingers. –xenotalk 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Your guess is as good as mine, I just work here -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) me too ... and I still haven't found the payroll department. ;P — Ched :  ?  23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (unresolving) Gentlemen, do you suppose the tenor of this conversation makes this website or its administration more or less welcoming to women? Imagine a female editor of 4000 edits and one GA, who does not know many Wikipedians yet but reads this board because she is contemplating a request for adminship. Was this line of discussion necessary? Is it decorous? Is it productive? Durova306 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) What are you talking about? I don't see anything wrong with the conversation, and I don't see myself as being chauvinistic for saying so, simply because I don't understand which bit you are talking about (because there is nothing there that I can see that appears to be sexist or chauvinistic like you appear to be implying). Am I missing something? — neuro(talk) 00:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Men do Kegels too, Durova. Some for enhancement of sex, some due to leakage problems in old age. You're seeing sexism where there is none. → ROUX ₪ 01:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC) If someone is intelligent enough to (a) have 4000 edits and a GA with no problems, (b) consult somewhere like this before running for adminship, I'd expect them to be intelligent enough to be able to understand humour without a flashing sign. I don't see a problem here. But in the interests of gender equality; can I have the tools as well? Our article on the prostate is awful and my boyfriend needs to know where to aim. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Honey, I know where to aim, don't worry. → ROUX ₪ 01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) No dear, my boyfriend. You count as "occasional sexual liason", which is one step below "boyfriend", and directly above "casual hump". I'll send you a flowchart. Ironholds (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Okay then, this perspective is unwelcome. Just go ahead and salt it. Durova306 02:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC) What exactly do you mean? @harej 02:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Exactly what it says. Direct further questions here. Durova306 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I would like everyone to keep this into perspective, because frankly this is really fucked up. I was watching Daniel Tosh with my girlfriend and he mentioned that he could Kegel 75 lbs (not sure what that is in stones). She laughed. I had no idea what a kegel was. So she had me google it and the article came about. It was so poorly written, so arbitrary, and so fucked up. It ended up in me requesting the tools again. This chick, who I adore more that anything, was sitting beside me the entire time. If you read the request again with different eyes, anyone who knows my persona will get that it was either a non sequitur or just sublime. As a female, I wasn't bothered by this the slightest, but I admit that it's very difficult to offend me. :) hmwitht 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC) On a personal note to Durova, I have had, and anticipate a great rapport with you. We have had great communication. While I find you the great mentor of those who have gone astray, where am I in this open mind of yours? While I advocated for my tools to return, my girlfriend had a huge laugh at the fact that I would assert that the article need be cleaned up because I made it quite clear it was for her. Essentially, I was saying her vagina was so wrecked that I was disappointed that Wikipedia did nothing to help the situation. It may be hard to believe, but I can take this, as well as my relationship seriously, and at the same time, some females are so comfortable in their existence that a play on the muscular ability of their vagina is laughable. Give me a fucking break. She's a former Marine. If she thought that I did this alone, and as a cry for vaginal tightness, I'd get a swift kick to the throat. The chick is five foot nine, and could probably drop me if she tried. Fortunately she shares the same sense of humor that most do. By virtue of the fact that she found it amusing as she was sitting here and since we looked up the entry together, I would say this is one drama you need to let go. There is truly nothing to see here. I'm saddened. I was truly hoping to start the first San Diego meetup, but shit, this is more about you than us. Keep on fighting the good fight, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Law type! snype? 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC) That you and your girlfriend are not offended by the topic, or it's irrelevant insertion into a noticeboard that is unrelated, does not automatically mean that no one else will be. I'll state that there isn't anything anyone can write on the internet that will offend me, but that's not what matters. While Wikipedia isn't censored, some people have taken that to mean that no one should bother to make any effort to take other people's sensitivities into account. That is not the case. Wikipedia not being censored just means sensitive people shouldn't go searching for things they might be offended by. However, public noticeboards are a different issue and making some effort not to be possibly offensive could be a benefit to the project in attracting or retaining editors with a viewpoint other than that of the teens or 20s white male that tends to dominate the project currently. Our ability to attain NPOV is aided by having people from a wide variety of viewpoints and backgrounds. Just a thought. Make of it what you will. - Taxman Talk 13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC) If you want to attract disillusioned old retirees, having a "Taxman" in charge is probably a bad idea --NE2 13:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree with Durova, but not necessarily for the same reasons. I'm not offended by rude words, but I do use them to judge the people that use them. In his original request, and also in his response, Law has taken great pains to show that he is immature. Lucky for him, he got the tools back automatically, because (while I don't much care about a candidate's chronological age) I prefer admins with some modicum of maturity, demonstrating judgement and tact. If he had an RFA now, I'd oppose. I would have been thrilled to have a Crat respond "yes, you can have them back, when you learn to ask for them like a grownup." --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC) There's a minimal level of decorum for open public discourse and this falls well below the line. Between a boyfriend and girlfriend, ain't a problem. On a private chat in IRC between buddies? If the group is all cool with it it no trouble there either. This is one of the formal noticeboards of the world's largest encyclopedia, and it's public. Anyone who's worked professionally with the public knows where the lines are. Decades ago when women first entered formerly all-male fields they were ridiculed for being 'too sensitive' or lacking humor when they objected to locker room wisecracks in the workplace. "Oh, but it wasn't directed at you" the excuses ran, plus claims that the sexual theme wasn't specifically degrading to women and examples of other much more private settings where the same dirty jokes had gone over fine. None of which addressed the plain fact that this was a bunch of men who didn't know the woman in their company well enough to tell sexual jokes in her presence. Some of them lacked the social skills to recognize the difference; others were attempting to provoke a response and then ostracize her for it because they didn't want her there. BN is not Wikipedia's locker room. That's not prudery; it's maturity. And why did I just catch athlete's foot? Durova306 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I also find the tone here unhelpful for a noticeboard. To mitigate the situation to some extent, would there be any objection to archiving this section? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what's happening, but the daily sections are not being created in WP:USURP, and the bot has not checked a whole bunch of requests from August 26 on. I think it may have something to do with the edit I fixed here. bibliomaniac15 04:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot is blocked - "21:28, August 26, 2009 WJBscribe (talk | contribs | block) blocked ClueBot VI (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Bot malfunctioning) (unblock | change block)" --Chris 08:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Will posted this note on ClueBot's talkpage. The note was archived by ClueBot III before Cobi could respond. --Chris 08:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up to bureaucrats that this RFA may be a bit of a challenge to close. While most of the discussion is sensible, the current ratios fall clearly in the discretionary zone. In my opinion, at least one of the opposes is inappropriate. However, also close to 10 of the supports not only provide little commentary (which is pretty typical and is usually taken to mean per nom) but are sufficiently frivolous that it's hard to judge the opinion behind them and whether or not they can be interpreted to indicate thoughtful support of the nomination. Raising it here and now since whle one option is that some bureaucrat just does his/her best to divine intent when closing in a day's time, another option could involve bureaucrats proactively announcing concerns and/or requesting clarification of certain comments before the clock runs out. Martinp (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (who has participated)

Well I have commented already at the RFA in support, so these comments here are distinctly made without my crat hat, as it would be improper to support and act as a crat. Right now my math points at the RFA having 77% support, and historically the highest percentage to ever be found not successful was a 76% RFA in 2005, while there are two failed 75% RFAs in 2004 and 2006 respectively and one failed RFA at 74% in 2007, so I'm not sure how far this RFA in question falls into the discretionary zone since if it was closed as a failure, it would be the highest supported failure ever, which would tend to indicate it isn't within a previously defined zone. That said, if the comments attached to the opinions do indicate a greater weight should be given to certain issues, there might be some room for the closing crat to adjust the result, however, I would suggest that such an adjustment has generally occurred further into the discretionary zone (the 72%-75% range by my research) than is shown by the current position. MBisanz ^talk 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not like bureaucrats have never closed controversial RFAs before. If it weren't for such RFAs, we wouldn't need crats at all. I think the bureaucrats are perfectly capable of determining consensus on their own without being told how many votes to ignore from a non-neutral party. Mr.Z-man 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Martinp, you absolutely shouldn't be the person raising such concerns given that you have commented twice to Oppose the RfA in question, the wording of your initial comment is deeply worrying, given than you're effectively arguing that the numbers should be adjusted downwards by 10 support and 1 oppose. It's also wholly inappropriate to be raising any points concerning the RfA a full 26 hours before the closure when your comments could influence the outcome of the RfA in either direction. The absolute most you should have done this early is to ask that you be permitted to make a representation to the closing crat just after the RfA is closed to new comments and before a decision is made either way. There's no real problem leaving the decision in limbo for 24-48 hours whilst clarification of any support or oppose comments is sought. I'm also concerned at the number crunching Matt has provided, which provides a useful target for people wanting to canvass support or oppose comments to work towards, so I'm going to ask that a bureaucrat removes this section until the RfA is due to close before reinstating after the RfA is closed but before a decision is made (if it's not a straight forward decision to close either way). Nick (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. One of the challenges of contentious discussions is that everyone supposes as default that the goal of any comment is to try to sway the process in the support of one's point of view. Believe it or not, my motivation was that I reread the RFA and found myself asking "are these really supports or not - I pity the closing bureaucrat. Would be a lot easier if there were some way to just ask the folks what they meant". A quite likely outcome of any probing would be to "firm up" some of the bizarrely worded supports and thus perhaps more clearly or firmly establish a consensus which happens to go counter to the point of view I expressed myself. Furthermore, to Nick's objection, I think it is fully appropriate to be raising these issues at the time when the discussion is still ongoing and people have the opportunity to react. It would be less appropriate for anyone to be making representations to the closing bureaucrat after the fact when discussion is limited. I assume that any bureaucrat will explore strengths of arguments as well as numbers and so will be grappling with this anyway. That being said, I recognize that if one assumes a spirit of partisanship rather than of consensus building, my comments could be viewed as troubling given my prior participation, and do not object if a bureaucrat wishes to remove them. However, I hope they will not, since both open discussion, as well as alignment behind the consensus established even by those whose initial point of view was different, is an important part of WP governance. Martinp (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have no fear about the RfA; situations like this are why we get such fat paychecks... though I'm assuming mine is lost in the mail. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.paypal.com. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is clearly in the discretionary zone, near the upper end of it, but it's not an obvious close in either direction. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The name under which I edited during my first couple years as a Wikipedian has been re-created. No edits have been made yet. I am a bit discomfited by this news, and I would appreciate it if someone could contact me privately to discuss my options. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you call it your name. Didn't you clearly forfeit it in favor of a different name years ago? I suppose one option you have is to usurp the account (assuming it really has no edits). A lot of users re-register their previous names to avoid confusion or impersonation. Though, by not doing so previously, it seems rather mean to try to usurp after the fact (this of course depends on how the obscure the old name is, though). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the rename tool now automatically recreates the old username, to prevent impersonation. At least, it worked that way for me. I can understand why he would be disturbed by having someone using his previous (and relatively distinctive) username, which he used for some time and by which some people might still recognize him. Nathan ^T 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a checkbox the bureaucrats can use to re-register it, I'm not sure if they normally leave it checked or not. but it is disabled. –xeno^talk 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...this is news to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. There is only one checkbox in general, and that is "Move user and talk pages (and their subpages) to new name". If the name is already in SUL, you get another about that. -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will have to look into this. Maybe I'm misremembering and this was a bugzilla that's not fulfilled yet. –xeno^talk 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I wasn't losing my mind: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 12#New rename feature: "Block the old username from future use" (now disabled).

Well, as you can see, it worked at some point! I certainly didn't re-register this username myself, with the identical password... Avruch (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you suffer from re-attribution lag? Because Xenocidic got recreated automatically with the same password too. –xeno^talk 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I'm sure I had far fewer edits than you. It could be SUL related, this might have come up before and I vaguely recall that as a possible explanation. Nathan ^T 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a well known issue I was grousing about in a recently archived thread. I wanted to make a rule of thumb for how to rename large accounts like you, but no one seemed interested. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Waiting for times of light job queue would certainly be a good idea. –xeno^talk 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, this is what the screen currently looks like File:Rename-2009-09-02.png. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MZ, you are correct that re-registering the previous name right away would have been a good idea. I wish it had been done, but clearly I didn't think of it and it wasn't done automatically at the time of my rename. Nathan correctly gives a primary reason for my discomfort. There are others besides.

It may be worth noting that the user page and talk page of the old name have been redirects to my pages ever since the rename, and that is still the case even though the old name has been re-created.

If a usurp would not be deemed out of line at this point, I would be interested. The account still has no edits. I guess I would have to create a new account with a dummy name and then apply to usurp from there? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've put in the request. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note for the record that steward M7 accidentally desysopped Dominic (talk · contribs) [6] when removing his CU/OS flags per [7], so I have restored the admin flag as a local crat. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Trends showing the falling number of active admins combined with a sharp decline in the numbers achieving promotion, seem to have sparked a nascent consensus for limited RfA reform over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. Even editors that have previously opposed reform have came out in favour. Can you guys please advise what the appropriate forum would be to achieve the required consensus to make the change?

It would be good to know in advance so we can prepare our presentation accordingly. The major change we're likely to be proposing is a new track to adminship, involving a temporary and possibly partial assignment of the tools to trainee editors willing to accept a period of coaching where they'd gain some actual admin experience before being granted the tools permanently by going up for RFA. An draft of our coaching proposal is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coaching_with_Tools

As well as presenting this solution along with possibly other minor reforms, we're be illustrating the urgent need for a change probably with the use of the charts and graphs provided by Mat and Cool at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Active_admins

Should we be asking you guys to rubber stamp our proposal first or go direct to the community? Or how should we proceed? FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPP is what you want. Traditionally, even those few proposals that get traction at WT:RFA flame out in front of the rest of the community. There are a lot of reasons for that, and I'm sure you'll hear most of them! Nathan ^T 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Village Pump it is. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, but things will go better if we can settle some of the tough questions first, such as the one I posted at WT:RFA#A fork in the road. The problem with putting this on VPP right now is that there are so many different questions to consider and so many different opinions that we'll all die in a big combinatorial explosion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree, we should hold fire until we're agreed on the fine details of what we're proposing. And Im not planning to be the one to start the thread on VPP either, it will be best if someone more respected and well known such as yourself, Ballonman or Mat leads. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find some cannon fodder brave souls willing to lead the charge when the time is right. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My advice is give it up. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried." The declining active admins chart is very dramatic, but also highly misleading, and I prefer the one which has the number of actions per day, which is pretty flat. Actually, even the 2 year decline chart is misleading because it only shows a range between 850 and 1100. Both numbers are more than sufficient. The admin tools aren't that hard to figure out that admins need to "test drive" to learn how to use them. Andre (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems this has been left open past the scheduled expiration time. While I have no problem with that (in fact, I think it should be extended a day or so), I think it would be good if a bureaucrat could update us as to how long we can expect it to remain open? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

•  By Taxman MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User IMatthew is asking his RFA be closed ASAP Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IMatthew_3 thanks Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Could a crat look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Erik9_blocked and decide what to do with Erik9bot (talk · contribs)'s bot flag? Note: I am not acting as a BAG member or crat in making this post. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bubba hotep has blocked, due to misuse of the bot by Erik9. Needs a de-flag, IMO - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the flag - it doesn't seem appropriate for the account to remain flagged in the circumstances. Should it all turn out to be a misunderstanding (which seems unlikely having read the relevant threads) the flag can always be restored. WJBscribe (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, to which Hall of Fame should this incredible defense be submitted? --JayHenry (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it looks pretty compelling. I've marked this as resolved. - Taxman ^Talk 13:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could a passing crat resysop my account please. Removed at my request - [9] some months back. Thanks Kevin (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Resysopping procedures

Do you know whether you're going to quit again, Kevin? You've now been desysopped/resysopped twice in the past six months. Majorly talk 13:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a problem? Nathan ^T 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find admins who quit and come back at the drop of a hat to be unstable. I'd prefer it if our stewards/bureaucrats weren't abused with frivolous requests by the same few people over and over. If you don't want to use admins buttons, stop using them... don't just keep resigning and coming back like a yoyo. Majorly talk 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll need to propose a change to what is (I believe) one of our most non-controversial and established policies, endorsed in numerous ArbCom rulings. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. I don't want to change policy. I want people (read: admins) to get some stability and stop treating admin tools like toys. Is that too much too ask? I'm not going to concern myself if Kevin does this one hundred more times (though doing so would be grossly inappropriate), I'm simply asking him to be more considerate the next time he "feels" like resigning. Majorly talk 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it not possible that he is treating the admin tools like No Big Deal, picking them up and putting them down as needed? → ROUX ₪ 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He isn't doing that. He doesn't have to resign every time he gets fed up or whatever. Normally I'd find resigning the tools a good thing, for a break or whatever. But resigning and coming back twice in a six-month period ahows instability and poor judgement, at least to me. Majorly talk 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I find that hard to square with your advocacy of regular desysopping for inactivity on other projects, or your own history of requesting desysop. Surely, as a bureaucrat on meta who has performed more than a few rights changes, you aren't saying that a single additional action by an en.wp 'crat is too much to ask? I don't necessarily disagree with you on the principle that folks should just come and go without making a big deal out of it, but you wouldn't catch me making that point in light of the return of a specific administrator. Nathan ^T 17:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I advocate desysopping inactive admins (that is, ones that haven't made any edits, or a tiny amount over the past year). Additionally, you might want to look into the history of my own desysoppings. I have never resigned as an admin twice on any project other than this one, and in this project's case, I resigned once in October 2007 and a second time in September 2008. Almost a year apart, and one was "under a cloud", so it was basically forced.

If you don't disagree with the principle, there's nothing else to say. I'm not demanding anyone change their ways, just asking them nicely. Majorly talk 18:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<< Majorly, can you tell me what harmful, detrimental or adverse consequences emanate, have emanated (be specific), or could potentially emanate, from administrators resigning in good circumstances, and subsequently deciding to take up the tools again? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

None at all. You didn't see me complaining when he resigned the first time, back in March. That's because it's fine to give the tools a break. But it's not fine to do so as frequently as twice within a six-month period. As mentioned, it shows instability and poor judgement. Also, it's disrespectful to those who voted for you to keep quitting and coming back willy-nilly.

I'll reiterate the point that I have no problem with people resigning and coming back. I've done it myself. What is problematic to me is doing so multiple times within a short period of time. Majorly talk 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK; please allow me to rephrase my query. "Can you tell me what harmful, detrimental and/or adverse consequences (not concerns about stability, I mean concrete and tangible/visible factors) emanate, have emanated (be specific), or could potentially emanate, from administrators resigning in good circumstances, and subsequently deciding to take up the tools again, multiple times?" ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 17:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether it does or not is completely irrelevant. We don't consider doing or not doing things based on extremeties. The principle is, it's inappropriate to be resigning/returning more than once in a fairly short time-period. Majorly talk 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why/how/in what way is it inappropriate? Surely it's only inappropriate if it has negative effects? That's not an extremity at all; if Congress were to ban one from putting couscous in our shoes, one would say that that's stupid, as there's no tangible problem with people doing that. Neither is there one with people resigning and then re-taking adminship. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How, though? How is this not explained by what I said above: having the tools enabled when he needs them, disabling when he doesn't? I said nothing about being fed up, just that the good-faith interpretation of his actions is that he is putting NBD into action. If this were happening every day, I could see your point. But twice in six months? → ROUX ₪ 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, just asking him to consider what he's doing. By the umpeenth time this happens, will you still be saying this? I hope not. Majorly talk 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are complaining. And I certainly will be saying this, since I see absolutely no problem with it, and you have yet to verbalise what your concern is. Incidentally, who said he was going to do this umpteen times? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, your obviously sarcastic "Do you know whether you're going to quit again" comment does not even vaguely meet "I'm not complaining, just asking him to consider what he's doing". Knock of the sarcasm Majorly and we might all be a bit more interested. What value are you hoping to return from this thread? Per TreasuryTag what is your concern? People give up the bit, they get it back, they give it up, they get it back. So what? How this meets "instability" is beyond me. Not a great use of time, maybe, but instability? I think not. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The only problem here is Majorly. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly - I have not made any decison, and see no reason why it is a problem anyway. What is it to you whether someone has the tools or not? Twice I have given them up as a protest at the lack of will by the community to properly fix the BLP problem. First time I regained them in the naive hope that the Flagged Protection trial would go ahead. I gave them up once I realised that would never happen. This time another has convinced me that my protest is wasted, and that there is a better way to achieve change. Kevin (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Resigning anything here as a protest is a waste of time and space, as it's soon forgotten. You have to be in the mix to be able to change anything. Majorly is a clot who obviously knows that, but who chooses to ignore it when it suits him. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that it does take a substantial amount of time to properly validate the fact that someone resigned under non controversial circumstances. That time could be better spent elsewhere if the request could reasonably be avoided by not resigning without serious thought. So Majorly is not nearly as off base here as people are making him out to be. I would echo that we ask admins to think about it seriously before resigning (especially more than once), ask them not just treat it lightly, and then leave it at that. I don't think there's more we should do. - Taxman ^Talk 14:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh Jesus, why does it matter? Shut up and go write an article. iMatthew ^talk at 00:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators by and large don't write articles, for whatever reason, so your exhortation is either misguided or naive. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that is because a lot of people who write articles don't think adminship is worth it. Despite the fact that in my own experience, our article-writing admins seem to be among the best people on this site, they are still constantly placed in the same category as all the Forces of Evil by any crank at any time for any reason, or even no reason at all, with no way whatsoever to defend themselves in any reasonable manner. Simply by virtue of having the little "'sysop'" under $wgUserGroups, they at a stroke become the Sworn Enemies of Humanity, Time, and the Material Universe, even if they themselves have never once touched any of their admin buttons in a more controversial manner than blocking someone who compared them to various parts of the human reproductive system upwards of six times. Why would you want to have to put up with all that shite just so you can press a button once every two weeks? Many article writers don't want to, and some try it out, and then after a while decide it simply is not worth it.

By contrast, those who fight vandalism, or who deal with sockpuppets, or who tag articles for speedy deletion, and the like, generally have far more of their share of cranks attacking them at every turn long before they attempt to go through the Rites of Passage into the Realm of Darkness. By the time they reach the other side, they have already been scarred and battle-hardened from their work before they became admins, and thus they can largely withstand mostly anything that is fired at them. If they were unable to withstand it, they would never have lasted long enough for The Cabal™ to take notice of them.

I really do try to do my best, and I think most users who become involved in the workings of the site do, regardless of whether they pass RfA or not. What I am trying to say is, is it possible that the relative scarcity of article-writing admins is rooted in the same place as the reason that our active admin count is falling so rapidly? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that most of us try our best, but sometimes that falls far short of what's needed. I agree with you somewhat, but I think you're approaching this from the wrong side. Vandal fighters can fight vandals, but they're clueless when faced with a dispute over the content of an Irish Rebublican artice, for instance. As a result, those who actually try to defend content tend to find themselves blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that this issue has already been taken up at WP:VPP and am going to bring it there instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs) 05:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it at WP:VPP. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Would someone consider SNOW closing this? I fear that if this editor gets too many more opposes, he may get significantly discouraged. Thanks. GlassCobra 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You could do it yourself (instructions at User:Enigmaman/SNOW) but you should really ask the user to withdraw first. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Useight (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ISD, can someone please help with the stats thingy on the talk page? I got an error message when I tried to retrieve the data. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Islanders27 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ISD

ISD (talk · contribs) indicated to me via email that he would like to withdraw his RfA candidacy. Does he have to make a post on-wiki to that effect, or can a bureaucrat go ahead and close it early? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A crat doesn't need to be the one to close this in situations like this. I can't possibly imagine an on-wiki note being required, so I've been bold. Doing the necessaries now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz seems to be the only one patrolling these pages anymore. Are we down to one active bureaucrat? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I take a visit it usually seems it's under control. Of course, you probably have better perspective than I do on that matter. bibliomaniac15 06:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Almost every time I've visited the page over the past few weeks, everything's been done. I managed to do one or two requests by catching them immidiately after they were posted. It's the same with RFAs. But I'm active, if I'm needed. --Deskana (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what you're talking about... —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know one's work is being appreciated: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I realise those who are thinking of requesting the bureaucrat flag have an interest in presenting the current bureaucrat team as short staffed, but I do find these sorts of threads a bit depressing. WJBscribe (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies from my perspective. Sudden stress IRL means lower profile here. But we don't seem to be drastically backlogged anywhere, do we? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread was more to ruffle some feathers to direct attention to the outstanding requests that have been sitting there for a while. At least it worked... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just not that high priority of a task. While we are here in our role to serve the community, the real reason this project is here is to improve articles and as such something like WP:VITAL is drastically higher priority. That's why I've long advocated reducing the types of renames that we perform or at least discouraging those for most reasons. - Taxman ^Talk 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll ruffle YOUR feathers... Andre (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth remembering that I have a much more distinctive signature than most of the other crats, so at a quick scroll of a page, my comments tend to stand out a bit more. Certainly don't feel like I am the only person doing work, although it would be nice to see some of the less frequent names (i.e. those who haven't responded here already) at CHU. MBisanz ^talk 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at them almost daily, and I'm ready to step in if necessary. — Dan | talk 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I know from experience that Dan does good work ;P — Ched :  ?  20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a broader discussion about this RfA? I note that a non-crat has marked it as closed, pending decision. As a matter of personal reaction, by vote total and strength of argument, I would be tempted to close as unsuccessful, but I'm leaving it for a more experienced/active crat or for a discussion. -- Pakaran 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's expired and so no one should be voting, but too close for a non-crat to give consensus hence the closure with the "pending decision" colour. So it's up to the crats to decide the outcome.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  286° 59' 0" NET   19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Expired" does not mean "no one can comment" - The expiration time is the earliest that the request can be closed, not the exact time that it must be closed. Mr.Z-man 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but don't comments go on the RfA talk page after it has expired?   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  291° 8' 45" NET   19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And uh, sevenseas, if you could tone down the colors in your signature, it'd be much appreciated. My eyes hurt >.< iMatthew ^talk at 19:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I should change my signature soon, but is it really that bad?

"Perhaps we should let a bureaucrat add this?" I agree a bureaucrat should add this, but it seems it should have been done a few hours ago and I'm pretty sure that nothing more should be added after an RfA has expired.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  291° 8' 45" NET   19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's really that bad. And I'm not sure you saw Mr.Z-man's comment above? An expired RfA doesn't mean it can't be commented on. iMatthew ^talk at 19:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seven days is the minimum time for an RfA to run, not the maximum. RfA timing is not rigid. It closes when a crat says it is closed. — neuro 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seven Seas, please do not add that template in the future, comments may be made anytime up until a crat closes it and non-crats should not be determining the conclusion of the comment period unless it is NOTNOT/SNOW or the user requests withdrawal. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pakaran, since I commented in support on his first RFA, I can't close this one, but I don't see anything so unusual about it that would render you incapable to decide on your own. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my errors, I wrongly thought that once an RfA expired, the priority was to close it as soon as possible.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  306° 29' 45" NET   20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to break any rules, I only wanted to help out.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  307° 9' 45" NET   20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you want to help out, but it's best to look at what policy says before taking action. WP:BOLD is one thing, but closing an RfA is another. :) — neuro 20:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to take you, thesevenseas, or anyone else to task. After some consideration, I agree with MBisanz that there's no exceptional circumstances present here (other than a closer vote total than I've closed since becoming active again). If there's no objections in the next half hour or so, I'll close. -- Pakaran 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As the candidate, I do have a request. I ask that whoever closes my RfA provides an explanation of the reasoning behind their verdict, as the !vote percentage is in the discretionary range. Timmeh 21:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems very undiscretionary to me, very rarely (about thrice iirc) have RfA's ever been closed when below 72 or so percent. — neuro 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Closed now and seems unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to. Perhaps I'm more hesitant than warranted, but after being inactive for some time, and the minor drama that ensued after my first close, I've been erring on the side of caution. Certainly, to promote at 70% would take truly exceptional circumstances. -- Pakaran 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pakaran shouldn't touch this RFA. With three and a bit years largely "missing" regarding Wikipedia edits I would have no confidence in his ability to be sure he is closing one way or the other within community norms. That's not any attack against Pakaran's general ability, simply a statement of fact that the evidence of his recent activity does not deliver confidence in his knowledge of RFA. Wisely, Pakaran highlighted the RFA to BN without taking action. Whilst Pakaran would be a more than welcome addition to the 'crat team I would feel that after this length of inactivity there are, shall we say, issues with him returning and suddenly closing RFA's. Perhaps a reconfirmation RFB that does not pass at 13/1 would be a good idea. Sorry to be so mean, and again it's nothing against Pakaran personally of course. Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, well, closed anyway but I leave my comments Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If a significant number of others share your concerns, I'll be happy to ask at admin review or RFC for suggestions on what I might do before continuing as an active crat. I was one of the first crats, and have been one of the less active, certainly. Since returning, I've performed 3 closes, all of which were successful by reasonably wide margins. Only one of them attracted concern about my actions, which turned out to be due to a misreading of a typo on my part (rather than a significantly early close, which was originally thought) [20] as well as some outside issues regarding interpretation of a vote that shortly preceded my close (I'll link details if anyone asks). At any rate, at this point, you're the only one to raise concerns - and I think standing for a re-RFB would shed more heat than light and is, so far as I know, unprecedented. -- Pakaran 21:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I have closed Timmeh 3 as unsuccessful, explanation on his talk page. Pakaran, I do not feel a RFC is necessary. I'm glad you're back active in crat work. I just suggest you close obvious ones first and work into the more borderline/discretion ones, like we all do at first, but of course you could move along at a faster pace than a brand new crat. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I wish no more dramaz than we have at the moment I would note that Pakaran's chances of passing an RFB with his 3.5 year inactivity would be zero. Actually he'd not even pass RFA in the current climate or tenure requirement. However closing a 90%+ RFA is hardly the most complex task in the world so, basically, whatever. I certainly would not want a drama fuelled RFC. The project is fucked anyway, so another crat who has barely edited in four years isn't likely to make it much worse. Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A significant proportion of the older admins and crats wouldn't pass at current standards (and, certainly, my getting admin at ~550 edits and crat at ~2k wouldn't now). (Incidentally, Angela for one became an administrator at under 100 edits, significantly earlier than I did). As for your claim that I wouldn't pass RFA or RFB now, I'm not sure. I certainly think that my contributions are more narrowly focused than the "median" successful RFA, but my overall edit count is higher. Of course, if you want "would pass now" to be the standard for folks to continue, that would be a pretty major change in policy, and one that I don't think would solve any practical problems (but would lead to a flood of reconfirmations). All that said, I don't think the tone of your remarks is helpful in raising opportunities for improvement for myself or "the project". -- Pakaran 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, the caustic nature of your comments here aren't helping at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well my apologies for upsetting anyone. There's never any point on commenting on anything is there really. I'll strike the lot, to keep you both happy. After all, hearing a different opinion from your own is clearly "caustic" and, as usual, simply ignorable. However the fact that Pakarn seems to think he would pass RFB (or is "not sure" that he wouldn't more accurately) (per his comments above) are, I'm sorry to say, proof he knows very little about the current RFA/RFB climate. Any RFB from anyone with his sporaidc recent history would bomb. We all know that. Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, if you ran for RFA or RFB today, I would oppose based on these comments. Andre (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you ran for either I would oppose you for your utter lack of communication skills evidenced by your lack of definition above. Nothing is getting improved here, sadly. The thread is done I feel. I am off to bed so will not be able to reply until around 07:00 UTC so please do not mistake my lack of response with a lack of interest. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get into a flame war, but although your comment disparaged my communication skills, I have no idea what you mean by "[my] lack of definition." Personally I think Pakaran is a valuable contributor and a guy whose years of experience more than qualify him to make any consensus call he wants, regardless of his recent inactivity. RFA is one of our more timeless processes, and is today as petty and political as it was in 2005. Regardless of either of our opinions on this RfA closure and Pakaran's fitness to perform it, your comments here are inappropriate, and smacks of bitterness about the lower numerical standards it may have had in the past. There's really nothing TO bureaucrat as a position and I don't understand why people spend time making comments and taking stands here. Andre (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, they must spend time making comments and taking stands here because they feel it is important. I do worry sometimes that we get carried away in criticising people for not raising points nicely enough rather than understanding that the reason they are being brusque is that it really matters to them. There are a not insignificant number of editors for whom the fact that long inactive bureaucrats who have lingered around without involvement in the community may involve themselves in controversial actions. Instead of brushing the whole thing away because Pedro was rather blunt, perhaps it's time we had this debate openly and properly? On the one hand, I think the concerns Pedro is voicing have merit, and I remember the matter being of concern to Cecropia when he was one of the most active crats, but on the other I think that both Kingturtle and Secretlondon have done great work as bureaucrats despite early appointments and long absenses. Why not have the debate about these issues properly, rather than reacting whenever they are brought up in a less than ideal manner? WJBscribe (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Will, thank you for assuming good faith on Pedro's behalf, but I can't see the legitimacy of doubting the competence of Pakaran, Kingturtle, Secretlondon, or even many of the others like Cimon avaro or TUF-KAT. My perception has been of many of these issues, as you mentioned above, that "those who are thinking of requesting the bureaucrat flag have an interest in presenting the current bureaucrat team as short staffed," and certainly deleting a few inactive ones would help that. I also find these sorts of threads a bit depressing. Andre (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I can certainly reassure your Andre that not only do I have absoultely no intention of running RFB, I would also fail one dramatically if I did. So you can at least be comforted that I don't raise these concerns out of some hidden agenda - I raise these concerns because they are, well, concerns. Pedro :  Chat  06:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

←I've banged my head a few times and I still can't get a decent argument to fall out one way or the other. The community certainly seems to take an uber-serious approach to RfB these days, and by those community standards, Pakaran shouldn't be closing RfAs. OTOH, Pakaran seems like a nice guy with a solid history on en.wp, I doubt he'd make a mistake, and it's likely that any mistake he might make would be dealt with properly ... and he does in fact have the authority to close under the rules the WMF set up, so as long as he does a good job, why not? That's the problem here, I think ... cratship was mandated in 2003 by the WMF, and although I have a lot of respect for the people who have worked for the WMF and gratitude for what they've done, bad things seem to happen when you mix WMF thinking and Wikipedian thinking; the community as it exists today would never have set up a process with a lifetime appointment that failed everyone who got less than 87% (after the first two months). I'm not personally unhappy with how RFAs are closed, crats do a good job with that, but I can understand Pedro's discomfort with an institution with very un-Wikipedian rules, and I second Will's motion to open debate, it can only help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Will and Dank. And my apologies for the edits above, in particular to Andre. I certainly understand that me coming shouting and swearing is not going to give anyone a positive view of my point and that was poor behaviour on my part. WJB essentially captures it neatly - I find it very frustrating that these tools can be held by long dormant or virtually inactive accounts - or accounts that simply do not partake in the project side. I also agree very much with Dank's sentiments. I'm not saying the closes Pakaran has undertaken where poor - they were not - but I did find it very concerning that he might swoop onto an RFA that was clearly less than blindingly obvious. To be honest at first I assumed Pak was a rename from one of our more active team!!. As I noted elsewhere I believe the close by Rlevse was fully accurate (even though I supported). My beef is not that RFA but as outlined above. Rightly or wrongly (most wrongly) RFA is a big deal for people and the trust placed in 'crats magnified because of it. That's just the way it is. A venue for discussion (not here) would (hopefuly) be beneficial. Pedro :  Chat  17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand Pedro's concerns, probably along the lines of WJBscribe, but I am far less concerned with Pakaran appearing and doing something stupid than I would be about one of the redlines of Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal/2009 popping up and closing an RFA without mentioning on BN that they didn't know how to. At least Pakaran knows how the procedures work and that 70% was something close enough that he might not be ready to close it without asking others. I really can't blame someone for being cautious and asking for help as opposed to leaping blindly and hurting himself. MBisanz ^talk 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In light of the comments made at a current Request for Arbitration, I have proposed a new process, that the Arbitration Committee can choose to employ, for referring de-sysopping proposals to the editor community at large. Full details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Proposal by Uncle G. The proposal involves Bureaucrats. I don't expect you to be wildly surprised by the details of the proposal. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I popped in to do some cratwork as I had a little spare time for once and found that the bots aren't working. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick, now's the time to strike, before the bots can recollect themselves to overthrow humanity's tyrannical rule! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late. Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I was canvassed via e-mail to support Kww's RfA by User:Provingyourhuman. It looks like a likely sock. I'm not sure who the sockmaster is though, or for what side. The request was to support Kww, but I opposed Kww's last RfA and it could be drawing up individuals in that camp and looking to discredit Kww at the same time. The request used some fairly inflammatory language about inclusionists, but was still "civil" on its surface so I am refraining from taking any action or replying myself. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actions taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Has a check-user been done? Irbisgreif (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would assume so. –Katerenka (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Two things to say: first, I did not canvass, nor ask anyone to canvass on my behalf. Second, I think events are supporting IronGargoyles "discredit" theory. Note that since IronGargoyle's !vote, there have been three opposes in relatively rapid succession, one of which (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_3&diff=320154703&oldid=320153601) specifically receives mentioning the e-mail as his method of being alerted to the RFA. Two of the three are from editors that opposed at my second RFA:

• Dekkapai
• Dreadstar.

Needless to say, I do not like seeing my RFA marred in this fashion. I can't predict what change this will make in an RFA has been sitting at the 70% threshold for days, but I can ask that a detailed enough investigation be launched that we know who received these e-mails, and hopefully can determine who sent them.—Kww(talk) 05:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Any chance we can get a log of who those e-mails were sent to? I assume that is logged...Hobit (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, the log only records that an email was sent and it hashes the identity of who it was sent to; only the devs have the hash and it would take something upwards of a subpoena I suspect to convince them of the need to violate the privacy of communication. MBisanz ^talk 05:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah "This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail." I always thought the recipient would be known... Never mind. Hobit (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What about how many messages were sent? I don't particularly care for the recipients. I trust they can use their own judgment to declare that they received the email or it influenced their decision (which, given the intended recipients it probably didn't). But it would be helpful to get a hold of the scale. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That should probably be retrievable without too much hassle and given to the crats in their private mailing list. Since this RFA looks like some of the more complicated RFAs to close (at least at the moment), I imagine that it might lead to a crat chat or at the very least, require an extensive rationale by the closing crat and in both cases this canvassing should be addressed. I agree with Kww that this looks like someone trying to discredit him to sway people to oppose this RFA - on the other hand, some people might have taken it for face value and supported because of the email. Today, 5 people supported the RFA and 6 people opposed it, so if we assume canvassing to have happened, it might have influenced both sides equally. Needless to say, it needs addressing anyway... Regards SoWhy 10:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of maths - I know it's not a vote, but 70% is often quoted as a guideline for a passing RfA. This means that, purely numerically, an oppose! vote is "worth" two and a bit times as much as a support !vote.   pablo_hablo. 10:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually, 70%-80% is often quoted as a discretionary range for crats but we should not let such thinking influence this discussion here. I just mentioned the numbers of today to point out that canvassing might have influenced both sides almost equally. Of course, we have no way of determining whether this is correct or not. Luckily, RfA is not a vote, so the "worth" of !votes is not a concern. Regards SoWhy 11:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the timing of account creation/acccount blocking, this incident occurred the course of around 3 hours, from 2300 on Oct 15 to 0200 on Oct 16. That started shortly before IronGargoyle's initial report. The mailing seems to have been limited to people that opposed at my earlier RFA: of the four that say they have received it, 100% are "no" voters at an earlier RFA. Those factors provide a fairly narrow group and time boundary.—Kww(talk) 11:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Without seeing the email, I would have to withhold judgment on whether or not it could be taken at face value. But I have to imagine that emails sent (so far) only to past opposers and offering up fictions presented about the candidates by some current opposers would not influence votes equally. I stand by my statement above that folks receiving the email have enough integrity to make their own judgments, but whether or not they would have seen the RfA at all becomes a point of contention. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I, personally, had been aware of the RfA prior to the e-mail and was planning on !voting. Had I not been aware of the RfA when I received the e-mail, I doubt I would have !voted (for that very reason). IronGargoyle (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just noting that I have received the e-mail from User:Provingyourhuman, presumably because I opposed a previous RFA by KWW. It has not influenced my decision over the RFA which I was aware of and have not decided whether to comment on or not. Davewild (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also received this email and opposed last time. I am still deciding whether to vote this time but the email will not influence me either way. Dean B (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The email recipients are stored as hashes. There were several emails sent and you can look at Provingyourhuman's contribs and see he did no editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand from Matt's comments above that the recipient accounts are unlikely to be recovered (And I don't care to know them), but several is ambiguous. 5? 10? Protonk (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Checkuser log, but I think it is interesting that only User:Provingyourhuman, an IP and another sock (User:Zirk69) were blocked here. If there is no apparent sockmaster, why would User:Provingyourhuman bother with this other sock (which itself has only edited very recently with some very inconsequential edits)? Were any canvassing e-mails sent by User:Zirk69? IronGargoyle (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could see the CU info, you'd understand, but because of the CU policies I can't go into the details. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. I suspected that there might be more going on than could be disclosed by CU policy, but based on what could be intuited from public information, I thought it was a point that should be raised. If nothing else, the user who sent the e-mail has clearly been around the wiki a few times. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically there are three options: it was someone who used a different IP than they normally do, it was someone who hasn't been active for a long time, or it was random trolling. I have no idea which, but will note the last option is actually quite common on RfAs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally start to wonder what's going on when you've got a lot of voters who never or rarely vote at RFA and who don't have a history of interactions with the candidate. In Kww's RFA, there's some of this among both supporters and opposers, but I don't have a good sense of whether it's a problem or not. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a good portion of this is simply RfA lurkers or the occasional drive-by Wikipedia-space browser. They see a name that they recognize from a big request for arbitration (i.e. Episodes & Characters), and it pulls out the partisans from both sides. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the people may have been drawn in by other RFA's running concurrently. Tango's RFA was well-patronized, and there may have been some spillover. Although it was not the trigger in my case (I supported Kww shortly before Tango's RFA went live), those are the only two RFAs in which I have participated recently. There may be similar overlap with others. Horologium (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Post canvassing analysis

Here's the breakdown of the opposes that were received after the incident and before the normal closing time of the RFA. Note that five out eleven are people that opposed in my last RFA, and four of those are people that have participated in no RFAs since my last RFA. One of them mentions having been contacted.

I'm not going to make any further analysis of this data. I simply post it to be considered.

editor	vote at KWW 2	RFA participation since KWW 2	Notes
Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	—	0	ARS member: probably saw notice on the talk pages of multiple ARS members. Desirable or not, this method of notification is not considered canvassing.
Dreadstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	oppose	2
Dekkappai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	oppose	0	Mentioned having been contacted
Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	—	1	stands accused of having run a canvassing campaign.
MaxPont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	oppose	0
Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	—	very active
Warrah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	—	0
littleolive_oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	oppose	0	Confirm receipt of scam email. It did not affect my vote. It read like a scam, and was not particularly literate. With all respect to Kww, I have other concerns. I watch RFA's at times, but only vote if I feel I have background info to make a judgement with a longer view than what is on the RfA page. (olive (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	oppose	0	I confirm receipt of the scam email. It had no effect. I already knew of the RfA via the RfA status template on my user page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	—	0
Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	—	0	ARS member: probably saw notice on the talk pages of multiple ARS members. Desirable or not, this method of notification is not considered canvassing.

—Kww(talk) 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say it is a bit ironic to complain about people showing up from Kww's own appeals to existing !votes to re-consider their opinions.

Additionally, a lack of recent !votes also describes some of the recent supports so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about anyone except the 5 which we have good reason to believe were emailed (i.e. the 5 who opposed the last one.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Being listed in this table isn't a complaint. It simply breaks down the group of voters. I agree that a big chunk of the group isn't suspicious at all: it would be surprising if Graeme Bartlett hadn't commented, because as far as I can tell, he comments on nearly all RFAs. The purpose of the list was to save the poor guy that has to do the analysis some time: I commented on the same five you did, and listed all for completeness.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the calm efficiency you've demonstrated in the face of this has earned my support. Durova³²⁷ 03:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I told one admin in email that they would probably want to vote "delete" on some puff article, got my ass kicked, and now I'm famous! Thanks, guys. I love this place. ► RATEL ◄ 03:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"In fact, I approached a whole lot of admins whom I thought would take shame at the presence of a person like Rubin. . . But obviously I overestimated a lot of people, sadly. ► RATEL ◄ 3:43 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

Just so we're clear. Lara 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)