Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I invite other bureaucrats to join in a discussion regarding whether there is a consensus for Kww to be made an administrator at this time.

Please note that I have emailed the bureaucrat list in relation to this. My message reads as follows:

Dear all,

I think a discussion of the outcome of Kww's 3rd RfA would be helpful and have accordingly initiated one. 
If you are available, I would appreciate it if you would join the discussion at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_3/Bureaucrat_discussion .

Kind regards
Will
(WJBscribe)

WJBscribe (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remove my admin rights until further notice. – B.hotep •talk• 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Posted to meta for the stewards to take care of. Sorry to see you go. NW (Talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not gone yet. – B.hotep •talk• 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat could make a comment here to appease B.hotep's concern's, I am sure he would appreciate it. NW (Talk) 03:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope you guys don't mind me posting here. I have made a suggestion here [1] which you might want to consider. No idea what support it will get over there, but it is something you could consider to move this along. Cheers. Leaky Caldron 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LC is proposing that we re-start the nomination, let it run for around 3 days, and not allow any discussion, just votes. I tend to favor more rather than less discussion in general. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm back, and I'd like my bit back, please - thanks. :) Krimpet (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. Welcome back. -- Andre (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Krimpet (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For the information of local bureaucrats, I have requested removal of my sysop status here. Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thank you for your contributions. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to Andre's statement. I think this is what Andre meant, but it is critical that it be clear. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs but I don't object to the clarification. Andre (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Preparations are ongoing for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may not deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates.

The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use this utility to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. Questions should be submitted at The General Questions page. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask here. Thank you for participating. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with crats? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps UltraExactZZ was under the impression that this is a major Wikipedia noticeboard that many users will have on their watchlists, and that it would be a good means of disseminating an important message. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely if one wants to achieve maximum global awareness for an internal Wikipedia election, the simplest method is to start a thread at Wikipedia Review? Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

True. It would also probably generate more interesting questions too. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, having faced the inquisistion last year, that the idea of these questions (both group and individual ones) accumulating from now to 1 December (i.e. more than month!) sends a shiver down my spine. I wonder if we are putting off those who would make good arbitrators but don't have the stomach for answering such a volume of questions. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but it's to be noted that an ability to answer questions and justify views is critical to the role. In other words, the arbs need to have the stomach for it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is one of those things that unless you've actually been on it, you have no idea how bad it really is. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to improve conditions? RxS (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that no matter what arbs/arbcom decides lots of users will howl at the moon, probably not--there are simply too many divergent views on how to handle any given situation, but it's not arbcom's job to make everyone happy, their job is to handle non-content cases that the community can't or hasn't been able to handle. Nonarbs simply do not understand how big the workload is either. It's enough to be a full time job, but it doesn't pay anyone's bills. Then throw in trying to get enough of the sitting arbs to argee on what to do, and I'm amazed anything gets done at all. AUSC and BASC were good moves, they took a lot of investigatory work off the arbs work load. Then consider arbs a top targets of trolls, banned users, outers, etc, and maybe you start to see the picture better. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A profusion of candidate questions can serve at least one useful screening function: any candidate who burns out on the question phase definitely isn't equipped for what the arbitrators actually deal with. It's a sample of what's to come. Durova³⁴⁹ 02:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. If you consider the volume of questions (some of them of very questionable relevance) and the time frame in which responses are expected, I don't think that does reflect what we ask of arbitrators. Arbitrators are expected to show sound judgment and to explain their actions and decisions quickly and clearly. We don't expect them to provide their stance on various points of wiki-philosophy and wiki-factionalism in detail and at length whenever someone cares to ask...

I am sure there are good arbitrator candidates who could handle the workload and explain their decision making process rationally and concisely, but who have little stomach for the Spanish Inquisition the election process is bound to become. WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There probably isn't any way to remove all the chaff without discarding wheat. That's a bit like reading evidence, after all: separating signal from noise is essential to good arbitrating. Durova³⁴⁹ 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec - also) Well, separating signal from noise is definitely a skill a good arb should have. I am not sure however that the best way to find out who has those skills is to just bombard candidates with questions. I have to say that if I listed the qualities I would like an arbitrator to have, "not being stupid enough to undergo this whole election process" would be one. Which is a self-defeating requirement (I guess I'd have to vote against anyone who stands). And also rules me out!

Seriously though, I do think both of us could easily come up with people who, through our experience of interacting with them on this project, we think would do a good job on the committee but who would be willing to run given the nature of the current selection process. WJBscribe (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The selection process is the least of it. Durova³⁴⁹ 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, we're stuck with the candidates the selection process produces - until they're forced to resign that is... WJBscribe (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, in which I independently used the wheat/chaff line) Well, I was never an arbitrator, but having observed it for a long time, I would be inclined to agree that a necessary trait for an effective one is a tolerance for explaining oneself at length even in the face of questionably relevant concerns, and a level-headedness that can reassure even some of the more radical elements in the Wiki political sphere. And the workload is definitely a significant part of it, so a lot of tedious questions should be an effective way to cull out the wheat from the chaff. Andre (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By the same taken, the real point of the exercise has to be examined if its main function is not to extract meaningful information by way of well-considered questions, but rather to drown the unworthy in a sea of questions not useful to anyone. I see merit in the argument that the ability to handle the number of questions can be an indicator of a candidate's mettle – in fact, I touched on it above – but I'm more inclined to think I'd rather sort the wheat from the chaff on the basis of the quality of answers to penetrating questions. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WT:CRAT. MBisanz ^talk 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bureaucrats project page says, "In like fashion, Bureacrats are expected to exercise judgment ... in granting or removing bot flags on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. ... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner."

I would like to know the reasoning for granting CyberBot a flag in this BRFA. I do not see any community consensus for this task. In fact, I can find a lack of community consensus for the task.

Please elaborate. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping this has been explained to you before. this appeared to be a non-controversial issue filling in a template. β^_command 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, MBisanz.

Please stop commenting about me, Betacommand. This is a question, and I am asking the question of bureacrats, not of you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, looking at the request I think a fair criticism would be the speed with which the BRFA was closed. Less than 36 hours of discussion took place before approval and flagging. I think the closing BAG member - and flagging bureaucrat - could have given more though to whether any objections to the task might arise with a longer discussion. It seems odd to bother with a trial run and not wait to see if it generates feedback from those editing the affected articles. Perhaps less haste in future? WJBscribe (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that bureaucrats may be approving the bots without looking over the discussions. It's clear there is no community consensus for this task mentioned in the discussion, the bot was speedied through, yet the bot adds thousands of links to wikipedia via filling in a template parameter. The system, as it currently stands, requires community consensus, but bots are approved by BAG members without community consensus, possibly on the belief that no disagreement can constitute consensus. I think that there should be a number of places where a bot could be questioned for community consensus. Is the bureaucrat flagging one of them? I don't know, but I am curious about the flagging of this particular bot. The RFBA does not indicate the bot meets the bot policy requirements for a bot, and, imo, it should not have been flagged. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"It appears to me that bureaucrats may be approving the bots without looking over the discussions". That's quite a strong claim - what bit of the discussion you linked to do you think wasn't considered by the bureaucrat who flagged the bot? I can see an issue with the discussion not having lasted longer (meaning that opposition was not voiced), but I do not see what part of the discussion you think was not read.

"No disagreeement can constitute consensus". Isn't this self-evidently true? WJBscribe (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be that strong, that's why I said "may," but in relation to this task and bot there is no community discussion whatsoever. The BRFA doesn't indicate that there was a request for the bot or a discussion about the bot anywhere. The operator merely proposes the bot, discusses his test edits, then it's approved. So, from this discussion it appears that a bureaucrat flagged this bot without looking over the discussion. If a bureaucrat had looked over the discussion while considering bot policy, he/she might have asked where the community request/input/discussion for the bot was and noted the entire BRFA process took less than 48 hours.[2]

So, in that light, no comment by bot operator about request, no community input links, no discussion of the desirability of the task, and rapid approval with input from only the approving BAG member in less than 48 hours might indicate that the bureaucrat flagging the bot did not review the discussion at all.

No, it's not self-evidently true. In particular in a case where the post was up and approved in less than 48 hours. Or when there has been no agreement, either. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In terms on moving forward, what exactly is the problem with this bot? How many users are unhappy with the task it is performing? WJBscribe (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would refer this to WP:RFC/BOT to answer those very valid questions. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was discussion of CobraBot's Task 1 at AN/I and the Village Pump which sparked a discussion regarding possibly modifying the involved template at Template_talk:Infobox_book#Worldcat_Weblink (which fizzled out without any decisive action). Primary objectors included User:Gavin.collins and User:Phil Bridger. However, no one appealed Task 1 to BAG until IP69 did just now. For CobraBot Task 2, only IP69 has objected; Phil Bridger even approved of Task 2. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I would typically agree with Matt here, except that CobraBot task 1 is basically finished, and the account has been approved for other, less controversial tasks. The unhappiness was caused because the template links to an external site when a field is filled in - there is no consensus for such a link, but the bot isn't, strictly speaking, adding a link, i.e. it's no more got consensus than if Cobra went through and added the fields manually. The BAG approver appears to have made the assumption that the construct of the template would have consensus, and that it wasn't directly related to the bot task. On that basis, filling in the fields was uncontroversial - and arguably still is. The discussion should be on the template's talk page, but in my opinion there is no benefit to removing the flag from this account Fritzpoll (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the template and OCLC usage here. And discussions about community consensus here.

However, here I would like understand how and why this bot was flagged considering the nature of its RFBA[3] which includes no community input and no discusion of community consensus. So, my question is who flagged this bot and why? According to the instructions at the bureaucrats board that indicates "Bureaucrats are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner." Thank you. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for, or why you have again quoted that particular sentence. The discussion you've linked to shows no disagreement whatsoever to the flagging of this bot. The bureaucrat who flagged the bot did judge the consensus correctly based on the available information - the BRFA. Now, as I said above, I agree that the BRFA should have run longer. Had it done so, a different discussion might have resulted and a bureacrat evaluating that discussion might well have decided not to flag the bot. I am not sure what you mean but the fact that it includes "no community input". Every participant in this project is part of the community. For something to have no community input, it would therefore need no one to comment on it. In this case, community input was limited but not non-existent.

In any event, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we seem to be getting a bit carried away with the fine points of this particular approval. Is there something very wrong with what the bot is doing? Can you point to a discussion that shows that the community has rejected the changes it has made? If so, then of course they should be reversed. If not, then I'm not sure what positive result this discussion can have... WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not broken don't fix? Agree with WJB. We have any number of essays, guidelines and policies on this kind of stuff - specifically WP:BOLD comes to mind. Pedro :  Chat  23:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I bolded it again for your benefit. It appears that others think that a bureaucrat may be asked their reasoning, and it's listed as an option on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats: ask the bureaucrat what their reasoning was. So I have asked. I would like the bureaucrat who flagged the bot to explain why he/she flagged it. I linked to this discussion on their talk page, also. It's a question. It's supposed to be answered in a civil manner. It's not supposed to be answered by wikilawyer-bludgeoning the asker to death-this is not the least civil. So, I'd appreciate being able to ask my question here, about flagging the bot, of the bureaucrat who flagged it. Thank you all.

I've posted links to discussions about other issues. Please feel free to participate there if you have questions. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't User talk:Anonymous Dissident. If you want him to explain something to you, that should be your first port of call... WJBscribe (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize I could find the specific bureaucrat. When I did I posted on his talk page. This, however, is the place for the question to be answered, as it's not a user talk page issue. It's about his decision as a bureaucrat. So, I'd like to ask my question and have it answered without any further wikilawyering and commenting about my asking. Thank you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your entire approach to this discussion has been rude and confrontational and I don't appreciate your accusation of "wikilawyering". If you want to know why a bureaucrat did something, the place to ask is his talkpage. If you want to discuss the process by which bureaucrats make decisions, then this is the place. But I strongly advise you to adopt a more collegial approach in further discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the place to ask about this matter is here. The invitation to ask is on the WP:Bureaucrat page-if you don't like the policy you're welcome to propose changing it with the community, of course. It's a question that I wanted answered in the broader perspective of the issue with bots and bureaucratic flagging. The place to ask a question that may lead to discussion about broader issues is on a public notice board where other editors can see the question, not on a user talk page. The bureaucrat involved had no problem answering the question directly. I come here to ask an appropriate question about a bureaucratic matter. That's all. The other issues have plenty of links if you want to discuss them. Your continuing to go at me is can be taken elsewhere. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I did review the Brfa for this bot. It certainly struck me as strange at the time that only 2 users had reviewed the bot, but since the pair seemed to have systematically worked through the outstanding issues and the task seemed relatively uncontroversial, I saw no reason to question the approval. In addition to that, Kingpin13 is a much-respected member of the BAG, and his judgement has always seemed sound to me. That's it. It seemed simple and watertight, so the time element didn't worry me and I flagged. I hope that answers your question. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is Soxbot no longer checking rename requests at CHU pages? It's been non active for weeks now. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no responses, lovely. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

X! is on Wikibreak at the moment. I doubt you'll get a reply until he's back. I suppose we could ask someone to write a replacement bot... WJBscribe (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like an indef length for X!. I'll ask BAG. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It has already been identified by others, but User:Chzz appears to have some pretty obvious sock issues. I went to his RfA specifically to support him, and saw some some strange things that concerned me enough to oppose. I honestly believe that if we don't get an extremly convincing explanation, then a 'crat should shut this thing down. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you mention this at WP:BN instead then? Regards SoWhy 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... yes. Good point. Moving it there now. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need intercession from the crats? I think the voters will probably react appropriately, and also, it may be helpful to the candidate to hear what they're going to need in a future RfA; I think opinions will probably be all over the place. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I only skimmed over the page, could you point out the Sockness please? All i'm seeing is the part about his use of a IP, His approved bot account and the two accounts he is using for the newbie treatment project which several people are participating in by the looks of the mailing list and he has informed the Arbcom of their user names. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 23:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

See questions 19-22 in the RfA. Specifically, I'm looking at User:龗 who it should be noted votes frequently, and appeared on the same day that Chzz declared a wikibreak back in June. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In this edit at 8:15 31 Oct, User:龗 posts an answer to a question at the RFA. In this edit at 8:18 31 Oct, User:Chzz changes the sig on the response to his signature, but in the answer to question 5, he does not dislose the 龗 account. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser  Confirmed Chzz = 龗. What I can say on wiki is the evidence is very convincing. Also found the "new user testing" account he mentioned. I am blocking 龗 and the new user test account. Will await community input on what to do with Chzz since an RFA is involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do the other rights (accountcreator, rollback etc) need to be removed? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This CU evidence is so strong, I wouldn't have a problem doing that. That 龗 was created when Chzz went on break makes it even more suspicious. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing up an SPI, see the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Make a note there that I'm working the CU right now, looking deeper. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Chzz did state "The computer I am using was left logged on by that other user.", so a confirmed checkuser can't really confirm or deny that. That said, there is definitely something very odd going on with this, particularly 龗's familiarity with WP and frequent voting. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that as well. What led me to push the issue was the timing of 龗's first edit with Chzz's wikibreak. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If "logged on by that other user" means his "new user test account" CU can refute that in this case. More to come, still working on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The new user test account probably shouldn't block, because it's for a project and Arbcom has been notified about the accounts and their names. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Does the bot account matter? It's just used to deliver newsletters. User:ChzzBot --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a summary of this and additional info at the SPI report (link above). As I am a crat and a CU and ran the CU in this instance, I will refrain from any crat-specific actions, such as closing the RFA, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This RfA should be put on hold until the CUs have finished their work. It's not perfectly clear what the situation is from the above comments, and lack of clear statements from CUs should not be the reason for a failed RfA (as we've discussed in the past). Nathan ^T 01:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for the final SPI report, but right now I am considering extending the RFA for 2-3 days in light of the material facts Rlevse has uncovered or re-starting the RFA from scratch. I (or another crat) will make a final decision once the SPI is closed, which should be prior to the planned RFA closed of Nov. 3. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How many times should we see RfAs prematurely tanked because of incomplete comments from checkusers before we learn to put the requests on hold first? Nathan ^T 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can the RfA just be blocked from editing until the issue is decided? Certainly Chzz should have an opportunity to defend himself. It's polite. I don't know the rules, but it seems that it does no harm to wait a few days to get all the facts together. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The rush to opposition here seems a little sudden, and could very well be inappropriate (if Chzz has a good reason for the alternate account usage). We could leave a note requesting that no one !vote for a short while, until the CUs have reached a conclusion and the SPI has been closed. — The Earwig @ 01:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I've gone and put it on hold pending the final SPI result, not pending a potential response from Chzz. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reopened with an extension in light of material new evidence. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Matt's decision. This kind of information coming in late in the RfA process is a valid reason to extend an RfA to give project members enough time to review and reflect on their opinions. -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Chzz#Isn't it time to call a halt to the RfA on whether the RFA should be closed prematurely due to the growing opposition. I think a crat should add their input at this discussion on whether this is needed or not. Regards SoWhy 19:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I added my personal opinion, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed by Avi. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 21:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support the Wikipedia community and its volunteers. I'm looking for a few people to help me get it off the ground, so feel free to join up! Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The scope is very general, and so are the problems you've identified. What does the WikiProject plan to achieve, and how does it plan to go about it? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the point at the moment. I'm rather unsure of how exactly to proceed, which is why I'm looking for a base of support before I move forward. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On 3 November, Andre restored sysop rights to Secret (formerly Jaranda), who resigned his admin rights in January 2009 [4]. A bureaucrat, EVula, had refused a request for resysop on a subsequent occasion [5]. In the circumtances, I do not think it was appropriate to restore sysop access without referring the matter back to the community or, at the very least, initiating a discussion with other bureaucrats. Assuming that Andre was unaware of EVula's past decision, I asked him by email to request that a steward reverse the desyopping but he has declined to do so and declares that is he is not bound by that determination.

Bureaucrats are allowed to restore user rights where these were relinquised uncontroversially, they cannot do so by fiat where they disagree with another bureaucrat's judgement. I believe that Andre's conduct in this matter has exceeded the authority granted to bureaucrats by the community. I would appreciate input from other bureaucrats as to how this matter can be resolved. WJBscribe (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(repost of my email response) Will,

I think I saw a request where Secret's reconfirmation was met with consternation from Majorly and a few others. Don't recall if it was the February one you linked, there may have been another. I don't think I was editing very regularly at that time.

I think the under a cloud clause is fairly unambiguous in that it refers to the circumstances of de-sysopping. The opposition to Secret's re-sysopping concerns the frequency of de- and re-sysopping, not the circumstances. Although Secret has this weird problem where he likes to relinquish and re-request the tools repeatedly, causing opposition on the bureaucrats' noticeboard from certain users who find that page interesting, that doesn't appear to be related to the actual reasons for relinquishing them. In other words, his resignation was uncontroversial. No controversy showed up until he requested the tools back publicly and some users raised an objection.

At present, none of our policies or guidelines deprecate a user who wishes to be un- and re-flagged many times based on life events. If this practice concerns you I would suggest you add such a policy to avoid it in the future. Furthermore, bureaucrat declines of routine requests do not constitute binding precedent on the issue, and although EVula may feel that a cloud has developed, I think it would be tough to call such an interpretation clear-cut or unimpeachable.

Although it would have been very unpolitic for me to directly overrule EVula's decision after he made it, February was a long time ago. So in keeping with the usual wiki standbys of AGF, BOLD, and IAR (although I'm not ignoring any rules since none exist about this, but I always like to cite IAR), and the fact that Secret is a long-time user who has contributed meaningfully in an admin capacity to the encyclopedia, I think his resysop is an appropriate action.

You're welcome to raise the matter on-wiki but I think that would be a big waste of everyone's time. It's important to determine whether one's actions as an admin, bureaucrat, or editor are benefiting the encyclopedia in some way or merely adding needless red tape and bureaucratic process. Andre (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret's request was not just "met with consternation from Majorly and a few others", it was declined by a bureaucrat. Were you aware of that when you accepted a renewed request from Secret this month. If not, would it affected your decision had you been aware that a previous request had been declined? WJBscribe (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I was dimly aware of Secret's request having not succeeded, which presupposes that a bureaucrat must not have acted on it. What seems clear to me is that a cloud formed after his request, but I don't see anything resembling a cloud on his initial resignation, which is the only factor that matters for routine resysops. Bureaucrats are not a committee and the actions of one bureaucrat do not constitute a binding precedent for other bureaucrats even if the decision is essentially the same. In fact, I would argue that bureaucrats do not have the ability to register a "decline" for a routine request, they can either grant the request, or take no action. That no bureaucrat wanted to make waves and take the action does not prohibit further action on a similar request. Andre (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is your determination better than that of EVula? I see nothing in his comment that says that he didn't want to "make waves" - he determined that a resysop was not appropriate. WJBscribe (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Will: Did you see this and this from EVula? Seems pretty clear to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen those diffs and Andre did not draw them to my attention when we discussed this. Though they do definitely lessen my concern that EVula was overruled, I note that Taxman agree that the tools should not be returned [6]. At the time, Andre acknowledged that his opinion was contrary to that of 3 other crats [7]. I remain of the opinion that this was not a situation where admin rights should have been restored without at the very least a discussion onwiki and that, where crats are unable to agree, an RfA is preferable. It was not a case where restoration by a sole bureaucrat was appropriate. Perhaps it is time for a proper review of the circumstances in which crats can restore those rights. WJBscribe (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hindsight being what it is, it seems fairly clear to me that the discussion in February was focused on stupid and largely irrelevant issues (and an apparent misunderstanding of the background of the situation which led to far too much confusion). I don't see a problem with Andre's actions, though I agree that having clearer guidelines in this area might be a good idea. (At the very least, it will give people something new to complain about and lawyer over. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like I even commented on that issue in Feb. And I indicated I would overturn it then, but Secret must have not wanted me to. Are you really going to argue with me about something I apparently as good as did in February? Andre (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It does strike me as somewhat odd that a bureaucrat would re-sysop someone who'd only made a handful of contributions in the past six months, on the strength of an email request. Risker (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's not how it works. Andre (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that a re-sysop should not have occurred here without further discussion, but I think it would be counter-productive to introduce structured guidelines for discretionary re-sysopping. In fact, such makes little sense for a process for which every case is unique, and in which discretion is integral. I feel that the current bureaucrat cohort is small enough that we can come to a common agreement without the need for codification. The problem is not that the norms for discretionary re-sysopping are not tabulated in policy, but that each bureaucrat produces a different assessment of the same situation. My suggestion is that we make it a point to refrain from unilateral re-sysopping when other bureaucrats have disagreed in the past, or even when there is the potential for contention. Discussion is cheap, and it prevents problems like this. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of the sentiments above. (NB I'm focussing on the broader picture, what we do when assessing resysop. Discussion of whether Secret should or should not be resysopped, I think should be in a separate section to avoid conflation/confusion of issues) Let's ignore this exact situation and consider an occasion when a Crat is approached for a resysop and is entirely unaware of any issues surrounding that user. The nature of Wikipedia is that evidence of problems could be scattered here, there and everywhere. I think that we should routinely post here and pause (what's the rush?) before resysopping to avoid potential problems. After a short break, the Crat who originally "took" the case should exercise their discretion armed with any / all info required. Yes, it'll mean small drama more regularly, but better it should avoid big drama always. Resysop requests that for some reason require greater discretion can be discussed on the Crat mailing list first. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should include this into WP:CRAT, i.e. that any resysop request requires a mandatory discussion on this noticeboard for say 24 hours in order to allow other crats and/or the community to supply reasons for declining such a request if they exist? Regards SoWhy 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If a consensus emerges among the Crats that we should do that, then yes. But someone may make an excellent argument that it's a bad idea, so let's hang fire for now... --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a bad idea for editors who are moving to a new username (for example, because of harrassment) and want to avoid a lengthy public discussion tying them to the old username. This is usually done by resigning the bit, waiting a while, and then making a confidential request confirming the old and new usernames. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I covered cases that require discretion in my suggestion... :-) --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the only requirement for being resysoped was that you did not resign "under a cloud". As nobody seems to be suggesting that Secret resigned under a cloud, any crat could give back the sysop bit at any time, without discussion. The system is intended to be very simple: if you resign in good circumstances, you get the bit back without any new RFA, long discussion, etc. The whole purpose of this system is its simplicity; if it were less certain that the bit would be restored, people would avoid giving it up temporarily, but the goal is to permit people to give it up temporarily without needing to "earn it back". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Really have to feel bad for Secret for how this has worked out, again! Please check this revision and read the "Not well done" section, where EVula states that he is willing to resysop Secret and other bureaucrats agree. Nathan ^T 14:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

While I obviously disagree with repromotion (long history of instability, problematic deletions, treating admin tools like toys etc) I'm not going to kick up a fuss this time. However, I'd like to make what I feel is a reasonable request: if a former admin wants their bit back, they should post here and not email in private. Doing it that way reduces accountability, and the bureaucrat may be unaware of an important issue. It just looks sly doing it via email. Majorly talk 15:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note there seems to be nothing recorded about what to do in case of former admins wanting to be admins again. It seems to be done based on past practice, but not policy. The only thing I can find is on WP:FORMER: "Former administrators who resigned their adminship in good standing may be reinstated at the discretion of any bureaucrat, while administrators who resigned under controversial circumstances must reapply for adminship by the usual means. Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration committee, the determination of whether "controversial circumstances" existed is left to the discretion of the bureaucrats". Majorly talk 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems within discretion. I remember we did have something about this in the admin policy(or was it the crat policy) when this happened in the past, I wonder if it was removed following consensus to do so or if it was just removed? Chillum 15:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I just this discussion, the "problem" I had with my syropping and desyropping was out of my control, and if there's any questions just email me, and I'll reply back if I feel the user is trustworthy enough to discuss the situation with me. The situation is too personal to discuss here. I'm fine enough to handle the tools now, I'm just going to use them when I have time. Right now we all agree we need as much activeadminstrators as we can get. I only went to Andrevan personally by email because I knew this was going to be a fuzz, and I felt nine months was enough to quiet down the discussion. Secret ^account 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I'm not going to complain. But did you think nobody would notice or bring it up? It's caused a fuss again, because it always would. I think that both desysopping and resysopping by bureaucrats should not be done willy-nilly just because a user asks. And I think sysopping by email just looks terrible, on both the admin and bureaucrat's part. Majorly talk 17:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on what is onwiki, I think readminning was a bad decision; but I'm trying to find out more before I make a final decision. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with what Majorly says here. Requests should be honored only if posted here first. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a big deal. Chillum 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is a deal, and having been turned down by one crat, this should have gone back to the community to decide. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone has a reason that re-sysopping ever needs to be a secret, I agree with Majorly and Regents that all re-sysopping requests should be posted here, and nothing should happen for 24 hours, in case someone wants to talk about it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone proposed such a policy I would only support it if some very good reasons were presented(such as an example of the discretion of 'crats causing an actual problem). Chillum 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well this problem has arisen, one crat refused to resop and another didn't care about the opinions of that crat. Adminship is not a lifetime right, or shouldn't be, if you have lost the trust and support of the community, it should be the community that replaces the trust , or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, if you read the links and discussion above you'll see that the crat who refused changed his mind and offered to resysop. The link I posted above contains the discussion, which describes the mistake that crat made and what others thought about the situation at the time. Nathan ^T 01:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as it looks like your account has dropped it is hard to see the exact diff you are referring to, I have had a read here and looked at some although not all the links. Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Nathan ^T 01:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been looking a bit more and the more I look the less I like it, neither the crat or the resopped admin have more than 500 edits since February, neither of them are very active. Off2riorob (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Activity isn't a criterion for resysopping. And I've been editing every month continuously since 2004. Andre (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if your editing has dropped off but to me, activity is a reflection of involvement in the project and it follows, an understanding of where the community is at on a whole with regards to these kind of back door decisions. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Response to Chillum's question re reason) It is generally better to do things on-wiki rather than off-wiki because transparency is important in a project such as this. Off-wiki stuff makes it possible to question motives and we want to avoid going there. (This is not a comment on the current imbroglio, on which I have no opinion either way.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my view is (and I can dig up the history here or on WT:RFA, I forget where it was) that a voluntary relinquishment of the tools, not under any pending ArbCom sanction, is not a true abdication, but a placement into abeyance, sort-of a forced vacation as it were. As such, in my opinion, these people were always sysops, they were just "sysops without tools". Therefore, it remains up to the 'crat's discretion and, IMO, should be returned with little fanfare. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Andre (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[8] Resigned uncontroversially, requesting return of admin tools. Thank you very much. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, my friend. :) bibliomaniac15 03:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#Number_of_arbs_and_terms:_consensus

There are four parts to this RFC. The first two parts already have a clear consensus established and it has been suggested that a crat perform a partial closure of those two parts now.

How the crats will deal with the last two parts is a task I do not envy. Speaking as a member of the "election coordination cabal", I'll just mention that *someone* will ultimately need to make an assessment about these two remaining RFC parts. We (the self-appointed coordinators) share the attitude that the crats will take that role, so if you are planning to dodge this bullet please let us know. (Not that I have any idea what we'd do next). Manning (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a further restatement that crats don't close RFCs since there isn't a policy that says crats close RFC and crats as a whole are against the idea of usurping new powers without community consent. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a RFC, any uninvolved administrator should be trusted and able to assess consensus and close that RFC accordingly. I agree that it might be a good idea to have crats perform such duties since they are elected to assess a particular kind of discussion (RFA) that can sometimes be very complex and as such crats are considered especially trusted by the community. We should consider changing RFC policy for future situations like this maybe, e.g. an RFC is closed by a crat if a certain number of admins/established users request it. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Last RfC I held, I asked a crat to close it and there was no problem.

There are four RfCs, yes. Two of them have presented a clear community preference: the term-lengths of the incoming arbs and the total size of the Committee that the election will deliver. I suggested earlier today, here and here, that these two RfCs from the set of four should be closed by a crat or an admin—I don't care which and I don't think anyone else does. I believe this should be done as a high priority so the electoral process can be certain of those two basic matters. If the "secure voting" RfC is problematic, it can be dealt with as a stand-alone issue and closed by a different admin/crat.

I think we'd all be relieved to know whether there's a blanket ban on the closing of RfCs by crats. At the moment, people would be please just to get on with it. Tony (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, iirc that RFC was by Dweller at [9] and he didn't do it wearing a crat hat (at least from what I could tell). MBisanz ^talk 17:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

From memory, I wasn't aware that I'd been asked as a Crat, but as someone previously uninvolved in the discussions. --Dweller (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Ultraexactzz to handle the closing of the RfC; seeing as they are the resident ArbCom election specialist, an experienced administrator, and someone who hasn't participated in the RfC, I think they are well-suited for the task.  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that any user in good standing can close a discussion. They don't have to be an admin or bureaucrat. Majorly talk 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for some sage advice, hence posting here, for language to add to Template:Cent/doc for the {{Cent}} template. I'm hoping for something concise and polite that spells out what the template is both intended for and not intended for. Presently it simply instructs "It maintains a compact index to active discussions of potential community-wide interest." While that is indeed helpful I'm looking to preemptively avoid drama of folks adding items that really aren't NPOV community discussions but unsure what would be best. All input appreciated. -- Banjeboi 02:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually mean to post to this noticeboard? We don't do anything, at all, with with T:CENT. MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did mean to as I'm looking for good advice and figured people would be on good behaviour here. lol! Everywhere I thought of seemed appropriate also seemed too low-trafficed. Suggestions? -- Banjeboi 23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed User:NoSeptember/crat stats hasn't been updated in some time. Does anyone have the free time to spare to update it or automate updating it? MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mr.Snoppy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As reported at ANI, the only edits by this user have mainly been at RFAs, and I have a strong suspicion that this is not a new user. One edit in particular, [10], is suspicious as (see edit summary)

1. The user is not authorized to use AWB nor is listed on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage,
2. Clicking on "AWB" in the edit summary sends you to AWB instead of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, which is what the script does by default.
3. The edit is not an edit normally made by AWB.

Especially with one of the RFAs being in that "grey area", I'm obligated to report this here for further investigation. My suspicion is that this is not a new user. MuZemike 08:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed - see here - Allie ^❤ 10:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting for restoration of adminship rights to a user in good standing. Would appreciate it to handle minor matters, but I am not looking to be involved in anything more than that. seicer | talk | contribs 23:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok with me. Suggest we wait the 24 hours many have been talking about for such requests. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been some events that happened since Seicer resigned the bit in April that Jimbo feels particularly strongly about. I've never taken the position that we're slaves to Jimbo or the Foundation, but in this case I think it would be considerate to ask his position. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about that. I'll ask him in case it truly is pertinent but I agree we are not Jimbo's robots. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I work for a private university and in the past, I've used information from press releases and the site that I assist in maintaining to fill in the gaps at our page. I haven't done that since _I_ notified Jimmy on his talk page due to possible conflict of interest. _{Sorry, misread the comment from DanK. I've not been keeping up with much of anything on WP lately, so I'm a bit out of the loop here.} seicer | talk | contribs 00:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the issue I was talking about, and see Jimbo's reply at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_47#Reply_from_Seicer. Sorry Seicer, I remembered that it came up, I didn't remember that Jimbo had replied. I'll do my homework before speaking up next time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem :) I suspected that was what it was about. seicer | talk | contribs 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo emailed me and the first sentence was "I have no objection." The rest just amplified upon that. If Jimbo doesn't object, I'll forward upon request. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my RfB. Will someone please close it? Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been [11] by Pedro (talk). ~ Riana ⁂ 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See here. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. As an editor who has been a participant in the proposal for 'Community de-adminship', I'd like to request Bureaucrat comment and discussion regarding the proposal in general and the projected role your membership would play in particular. As you may know, the proposal would be a reverse Rfa, possibly meaning Bureaucrats would close the !vote, determine consensus and take action if needed. Since this proposal obviously has the potential to increase your powers and duties, your input seems appropriate.

The original discussion page and vote, which I link here for convenience, is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall.

The proposal born of that page is at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and the section specific to Bureaucrat involvement (or not) is #6. I would like to see, if possible, discussion on this page/subpage and/or participation from some of you on the Draft RfC, as you see fit. For what it's worth, it seems to me that without meaningful Bureaucrat involvement at this point in the discussion, we should save everyone's time and just table the concept of 'Community de-adminship'.

It is also anticipated that the percentage of !votes required to de-admin will be a matter of debate.

Thanks for your consideration, and Best Wishes, Jusdafax 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented. -- Avi (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, it's appreciated. Jusdafax 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As you may (or may not have) known, SoxBot (the bot that normally clerks CHU) went walk about for awhile leaving us with no bot clerking CHU. To fix this I got my bot Chris G Bot 3 (which normally only archives) to pick up clerking as well, however as SoxBot has returned I have disabled my bots clerking. If SoxBot goes MIA again changing this page to "true" will re-enable my bots clerking. --Chris 09:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Your help was (as always) much appreciated. As is the return of SoxBot. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cough Fully protecting that page in Chris G's user space might be a plan. Pedro :  Chat  11:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

cough cough Regards SoWhy 11:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh.  Done :)Pedro :  Chat  12:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chris for taking up the slack while I (and SoxBot) were gone. It's good to know that we now have a backup bot in case mine goes down now. (X! · talk)  · @072  ·  00:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SoxBot ever did the archiving for that page, so we now have no archiving going on. I don't mind if Chris's bot resumes the duties, or X!'s, but please can somebody's? --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, mine should still be archiving, I'll go check. --Chris 08:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed, my bot is now back in action for archiving. --Chris 08:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. The page was really bloated! --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please participate in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion, even if it to slap me over the head with a dead fish for calling what you may believe is an unnecessary discussion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The above text (with a url instead of wikilink, and different signature) will be sent to the e-mail list for maximum coverage. -- Avi (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how often (roughly) is the mailing list used? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A few times a month, usually to inform of an on-wiki discussion or someone e-mailing the crats for a RTV name change request. -- Avi (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As per the outcome of the (lengthy) 'crat chat, I've gone ahead and promoted Nihonjoe. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• (per instruction from a bureaucrat) Which references the decision, not the poster. You'll find that this does not in any respect violate WP:NPA. I placed no personal attack upon WJBscribe, in fact I complemented his character. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Chillum has requested that I restore the "bot" bit to HBC AIV helperbot which I had removed 9 July 2008 because the "Bot operator retired." Is there any reason I should not honor this request to restore the bit here? Kingturtle (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't see any. Is there a reason not to restore? bibliomaniac15 06:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checking here first. I don't know of any reason. But I wanted to make sure. Kingturtle (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've bot flagged it, if that's the case. bibliomaniac15 07:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Could a crat take care of the requests waiting at Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL? Regards SoWhy 12:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Backlogged? There are five requests outstanding. I'll get to it now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

True but since one of them is a week old but CHU and CHU/U were handled, I thought that CHU/SUL might have been forgotten and thus it might be a good idea to leave a note here. Thank you AD for handling it despite my use of the bad "backlogged"-word for it Regards SoWhy 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would request that requests such as this are not left. There are many active bureaucrats who know about CHU/SUL and attend to it on a regular basis. Because you are now accustomed to seeing the requests handled promptly, 5 requests seems like a backlog. Comparatively, though, this is not a statistically significant number of unattended requests, especially if you look back to the 2006 backlogs and earlier. Either way, something like a username change isn't time sensitive and won't hold up anyone's encyclopedia work. Andre (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Can someone kindly switch my +sysop from User:Doc glasgow (and account I've not used in 18 months) to this current account. It has been linked for over a year, so identification should not be an issue. Thanks in anticipation.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to get a steward to remove the rights from User:Doc glasgow first, then I can give them to your current account. If you don't have access to your Doc glasgow account, make the request as Scott MacDonald and give the stewards a link to this diff - I confirm, as an enwiki bureaucrat, that User:Doc glasgow and User:Scott MacDonald were/are operated by the same person. WJBscribe (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Having interacted repeatedly with Doc glasgow/Scott MacDonald repeatedly over a period of years, I second for stewards' information the confirmation by WJBscribe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All done. WJBscribe (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to once again remind interested parties here of the ongoing work on the proposed 'reverse Rfa', Community de-adminship. It has been suggested we wind up our efforts in early January, but that is not set in stone. For those who have not been following this, I submit it is worth a look, and comments are welcomed. In my view it is of particular interest to the Bureaucrat membership, as it is proposed that Bureaucrats, just as in an Rfa, will close or otherwise be the final judge(s) of the matter of consensus. Needless to say, if implemented this proposal adds to your duties and powers.

There is also ongoing discussion on what happens after a 'final' draft has been completed, at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy. Again, your thoughts are welcomed. Happy Holidays to all, Jusdafax 22:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. Jusdafax 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been said on the RFA talk page that you guys can close an RFA per WP:SNOW even if the candidate has already rejected that course of action. If that is the case, I think it's probably time to put an end to this particular farce. The only supports are from the user himself and and a notorious jokester, while there are 35 opposes. Letting this run another six days is unlikely to improve matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, if someone wants theirRfX to remain open the full extent to get the most and best feedback, I would respect that and let it stay open for that reason. Is there anywhere that indicates that WGB would not use the time to understand the community's feedback better? -- Avi (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The way it was going, this was not the case. bibliomaniac15 18:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Then a closure is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I ran into a bit of an odd issue. There was a request at ANI for a specific username. I got the request when it came to ACC. When i went to create the account i got the error message ERROR SENDING EMAIL. I emailed the user to ask if he indeed never received his random password. In about 30 minutes now he has confirmed no password has been received. I advised in email and his talk page that i would see if i could get this fixed for him. As having an account created via ACC does not get their email address in their Preferences this new user has no means of accessing his account. If there is a bureaucrat with access on the ACC tool it is request # 40757. I was thinking as a way to remedy this if a bureaucrat could create a dummy account and then usurp User:PimpUigi and send him a specific password with instruction to change it. His email address is available in the ACC tool request or i can supply it via email. As seen in the ANI post this user is very partial to this username. delirious ☯ ^{~ nollaig shona duit~} 20:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why a username with "Pimp" in it was accepted at all. GrooveDog FOREVER 21:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I encountered the same error shortly before User:Deliriousandlost did, with User:Srjacobg. I encountered the same error while trying to create. The ACC request is #40756.  fetchcomms☛ 21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless I've sent PimpUigi a reset e-mail, let's see if he receives the password now. GrooveDog FOREVER 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've also sent a reset email, to Srjacobg. Hopefully this issue will resolve itself.  fetchcomms☛ 21:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that "pimp" was considered a "disruptive or offensive" username. delirious ☯ ^{~ nollaig shona duit~} 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So the resetting of the password worked for someone else and PimpUigi has his password now. I don't know why it all failed for me. Some usernames with "pimp" are blocked and some are not. Noöne objected to the name in the thread on ANI. I personally have no objection to the name. Sorry to have bother the BN with this. delirious ☯ ^{~ nollaig shona duit~} 21:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, the word Pimp in my name simply refers to how flashy, new, and fresh Luigi is (compared to Mario.) There is no derogatory nature intended. In fact, I've been lucky in the fact that no one has yet confused me for the original definition. I am humbly grateful towards Wikipedia for allowing me to use my name, this has been the best Christmas present I could have asked for.--PimpUigi (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've approved Orphaned image deletion bot (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Orphaned image deletion bot, however, another crat is needed to add the admin and bot flags per the usual process. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell, User:Coffee moved a discussion to the talk page [17]. I undid it because he's the nominator and felt it wasn't Kosher. He reverted me with the comment that there's no rule against it. I was wondering if there is such a rule on the matter, and also if Coffee's actions in regards to the RFA are crossing the line. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 19:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a crat but I can answer that there is no written rule against such actions. Coffee was as such allowed to do so. Whether he should have done so as the nominator is a different question imho and here the answer imho is that he shouldn't. Quite a few RFAs derailed because the nominator argued with the opposers or was too involved after nomination and did things that the community expects uninvolved users to do (like make such moves). Usually, it's expected that the nominator restrains themselves from editing the RFA too much after it goes live so that their actions don't influence the request but there is no rule to stop people who don't. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The issue is moot now since HJMitchell reverted Coffee's move. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• How about you inform the person who the discussion is about next time DC. There's no rule against such moves, and it's been redone per HJ Mitchell's talk page. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is common for long discussions on the RFA main page to be moved to the talk page, so that in itself is okay. However, it'd have been preferable for an uninvolved person to have made the move. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Just chiming in to agree with Rlevse. -- Avi (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Rlevse as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll agree with this bureaucrat triplet, but add that this is a dumb revert war. Whoever reverts next will be blocked. Andrevan@ 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thou hast been answered by bureaucrats four; go forth and reverteth no more; for if on yon lame wars many doth proceed to yammer; Rlevse will break out ye olde bannehammer -- Avi (talk) channeling a discombobulated William Shakespeare 02:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ROFL, one of the best posts ever on en.wiki, superb, Avi! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Omai... I iz teh scared. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But why did Avi use me when Andre is the one that threatened a block? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrevan's name has a strong syllable in the middle, which would no doubt break the meter. Or break it worse, anyhow. -- Pakaran 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • A little late to the party, but I also agree with the other 'crats. It's best for involved people to not move discussions like was done in this case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No policy against it that I'm aware of, if you want to add it to WP:RFA then do it. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather it not become policy. Egregious cases should be done as fast as possible and if that's someone involved in the nom, so be it. Best to avoid conflict and heat on RfA pages and it can always be reverted. And we have a policy already that precludes revert warring. Noms and nominees need to be sensible on RfAs - and really the ultimate sanction is that stupidity by them can lead to swathes of opposition. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Will someone be kind enough to close my RfA as withdrawn please? HJMitchell You rang? 03:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... (though I voted, I supported so I don't think there's COI potential.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry to see it went that way! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there's no COI (regardless of support/opposition) if the candidate has withdrawn their candidacy. Not a bad thing to be mindful of potential COIs, of course, but there's just not one here. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

+1 per EVula. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. CoI implies an ability to act based on one's preference (in this case, previously expressed !vote). When a candidate withdraws, the RfA is over, to paraphrase Fight Club, so there's no conflict in closing it versus waiting for someone else to do so. (Further comparisons with Fight Club are left as an exercise, but possibly apropos). -- Pakaran 00:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, enough people say that administrators are an abusive clique on Wikipedia; we don't need to make direct comparisons to Project Mayhem. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So I'm casually watching the current RFB and wondering what the current pass percentage is for these kinds of things. Someone made a rather tongue-in-cheek remark that 83% was now passing following Nihonjoe 4. I remember some discussions about lowering the passing range, but I can't remember if anything actually changed. What's the discretionary range nowadays? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've never closed an RfB as successful (and, I suspect, never closed one at all, but that's difficult to verify). Also, I have voted in the current one. However, as a matter of simple statistics, in 2009 we had four RfB's succeed at 94.9%, 91.6%, 95.7%, and 98.1%. We've also had 3 which finished but didn't reach consensus; of these, the highest S/(S+O) percentage was at 82.1 and was referred to as "borderline" by the closer. So, I think we might be justified in calling the discretionary range "in, or around, the eighties and very low nineties". But there really is too small a sample size to narrow it beyond that. -- Pakaran 03:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Nihonjoe/4 was 83% rather than 94.9%. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd maintain that anything between the mid-80's and 90 is the discretionary range – could go either way. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I stand corrected on Nihonjoe/4 (actually 82.7%), and that one ended in a crat chat. So maybe from, say, 87 or 88 up should have a stronger presumption of passing, and 80 down should likewise fail absent unusual circumstances? -- Pakaran 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nihonjoe was really an outlier. See WJBscribe's reasoning. The opposition's rationale as a whole was deemed weak, so a pass was the result. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • After reading the crat chat for Nihonjoe, I am leaning towards agreeing with you (though I can see 84% being a pass with less exceptional circumstances than occurred in that case - I'd forgotten about the pedophilia-related contention). But I think it makes more sense to see more views here (and, again, I !voted support on Julian's current RfB, though agreeing to raise the lower end of the discretionary range is not going to help him). -- Pakaran 03:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't !voted on this particular RfB, and I would like to close it if possible. I tried closing the last RfA, but was beaten by about 30 seconds (I was making sure I was doing everything correctly). I've been watching it carefully. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also watching it, but happy to let you close it, Joe. I know what you mean though, I rarely get to close RfXs. Fortunately, there's rarely a backlog on them. Or perhaps unfortunately, if you know what I mean. --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the highest percentage we've had at RfB that did not pass? --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that probably was the often cited Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana with 85,86%. Regards SoWhy 13:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I to have opined in the RfB under question, but my opinion (as I mentioned in Nihon/4) is that the current feeling in the wikipedia project is to have more relaxed standards then when I and many others ran for RfB, and I would consider the bar to have dropped from 9:1 to around 6:1 (which is almost triple the requirement for RfA) and so I would say around 85-86 would be an acceptable pass (6:1 ~ 85.7143%) with discretion down to 80% to handle cases such as Joes. Of course, that is subject to change if the community desires it--this is just my understanding of the current community desire. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course community opinion has to be the standard, and I agree that ot has softened over the past year or so. As a historical note, if we look very far back, we can find a RfB which succeeded with 78.6% support (though most of the opposes by now-banned users), and another which failed at 85.3%. Of course, those are so old as to be irrelevant - and I don't think my own two-sentence nomination statement would cut it today either. -- Pakaran 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The analysis of the Nihonjoe RfB was not a purely mathematically exercise. It shouldn't be assumed that because it passed at a particular level of support, all RfBs with that level of support will be successful, though it does establish a precedent that they can be. WJBscribe (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Scribe, while Joe's RFB was precedent-setting, it's not a surefire predictor of future RFBs. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Being bold

Per this discussion, I have made this change which I believe better reflects the community's current consensus. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see AnonDis made some tweaks, which I don't disagree with. One point, if I may. I'd rather we talk about ratios (8:1, 6:1, 2:1) than percentages, because of the asymptotic nature of percentages. Please see the graph I posted during the RFB bar discussion. -- Avi (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more an mid-80's thing than an 80–90 range. It's clear that 90% has broadly been deemed too great a threshold, but it's not clear that there is wide acceptance for something as low as 80%. What's really needed is a concentrated discussion about where the community thinks the bar is; general feeling shouldn't effect written change (and nor should a discussion between such a small subset of the community). The RFB bar discussion occurred almost two years ago – perhaps it's time to conduct something more formal? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness and transparency, I don't think it's really a good idea to change the "official" threshold during an ongoing (and indeed borderline) RfB. Just my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It should have been changed after the NihonJoe one, as part of our decision was based on the fact that the community's expectations had been changing. As we will be making future decisions based on that notion, it's actually in everyone's best interests to know as soon as possible. It is not the wording of that paragraph that determines the bureaucrats' decisions; rather, that paragraph should reflect what the 'crats ARE doing based on the project's consensus opinion. -- Avi (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can probably say that there is an expectation that RfBs with 90% support or higher will be successful save in exceptional circumstances and that those with less than 80% probably will not be. So I agree with AnonDis that there is a significant range between those percentages, though I think it important to make clear that judging consensus isn't just a matter of calculating percentages... WJBscribe (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that no conclusions should be made until a clearer precedent for RfBs should be set. (X! · talk)  · @073  ·  00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh dear Graphs! MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I do think there's value in seeing what happens with JC. It seems likely to give a better sense of how "firm" the bottom end of the discretionary range is (as always, subject to the community, at any time, giving us reason to believe that their standards have changed, as they clearly have softened in the past year or so). I also think that the header page in question isn't the "official threshold" and we will always have to use judgement - but the page should end up consistent with what the practice is, perhaps after we have a firmer sense of that. -- Pakaran 05:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this please? [18] It looks malformed and is probably inadmissible, considering the applicant's limited experience. Leaky Caldron 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be closed pretty quickly but unless they transclude it, there is nothing to close. I'll leave them a message about it but anyone can tell them though. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy hit the nail on the head with his comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 11:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we get another crat snow close on this one? His last RFA was closed per NOTNOW on 12/22. Clearly we have a user who is slow to take a hint, and probably the best thing for everyone would be to put a stop to this now and have a crat explain things to him (again). Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems he has declined a SNOW/NOTNOW close. Those types of closes exist to prevent users from hurting themselves by continuing with an RFA when they don't realize it can be withdrawn early. He knows it can be withdrawn early and has declined to let it be done early, therefore it will continue to run. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the edit-summary[19], it seems that he objected to a non-admin closure of his RfA. If an admin or a crat closes this RfA per NOTNOW, the candidate will probably be OK with it. Nsk92 (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And of course a crat can still perform a SNOW close even if the candidate objects to it. The whole point of WP:SNOW is to bring processes to an early end in which the result is already evident and I think we can say that this is the case here with 8 opposes in 4 hours. No point in having this continue but since they did object to a non-crat doing it (I think we need to interpret "not an Admin" as "not someone who is allowed to close an RFA", i.e. "not a crat", since the candidate is obviously unfamiliar with RFA) I think a crat should SNOW close it. Regards SoWhy 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I closed it per WP:SNOW, but now I need to run to New Year's dinner, so could someone else finish the paperwork? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done (with a bit of help from a fellow editor). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. As soon as a decision is reached, the result will be posted to the request page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone resysop me, please? I resigned uncontroversially in October. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Resignation seems uncontroversial after a contributions and talk page check; welcome back. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were going to wait 24 hours for these for potential issues to be dealt with? This was 18 minutes. Talk pages and contribs don't tell everything. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The user had adminship for slightly over a month. I skimmed over all his projectspace contributions over that period to check for abnormalities, as well as the talk page history. Several users noted that they "weren't sure what brought on" his request for sysop to be removed. I'm certain everything checks out. Nonetheless, I confess that I forgot about our discussion for the 24 hours, and I agree that it's a wise rule to stick by. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion didn't really determine a consensus for 24 hours. (X! · talk)  · @773  ·  17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, there was more than one thread on this, but I can't find the other one. Were there in fact two? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, there was no consensus to enforce a wait period. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall being being told there was a 24hr wait period after a thread on it. Perhaps we should chat about it again to ensure we're all on the same wavelength. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having been intimately intimated in this I'd suggest, yes, we have a chat about it. There's no major issue with allowing a "cooling off" period for re-sysops. 24 hours isn't that long to wait... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How about formalising it a bit: Resysop requests must be made here, and not on user talk pages irc etc. Resysopping can occur 24 hours after the first crat has commented indicating they are happy with resysopping (24 hours from the time of the opening post does not necessarily mean it has been checked by anyone, particularly during holidays). Viridae^Talk 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with waiting 24 hours. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is needless bureaucracy, and I have no intention of waiting 24 hours. Nor was there any kind of consensus to do so. Andrevan@ 21:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But consensus could be established to do so. Personally, I think there is no harm in waiting for some double checking to occur. Maybe not a fixed period but, let's say, 2 or 3 crats should indicate agreement before access is restored? Regards SoWhy 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Resysops are uncontroversial. We want to encourage users to give up their flags before a period of inactivity and not feel like they will need to pass some kind of mini-RFA to get them back. Andrevan@ 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Resysops are uncontroversial if the tools were given up uncontroversially. Some trivial guideline (such as an incredibly short waiting period) to ensure that this is in fact the case is hardly needless or cumbersome bureaucracy. --JayHenry (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(<-)I agree with Andrevan. As I have said many times, my view is that someone who "gives" up the tools under non-controversial circumstances is not considered to be removed from the sysop corps. Rather, it is analogous to a self-block for a forced vacation. The sysopstatus remains, only the access to the tools has been placed in abeyance. Reassuming the tools is not a change of status, nor even a resumption of a status. Rather, it is resumption of the tools that go with the status that was never removed. While a second check to make certain there was no controversy is not a bad idea, to enforce a waiting period is improper in my personal opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they should be easy and uncontroversial. But on the other hand, we also want to ensure that those who gave up the flag under a cloud (for example when faced with a community considering their desysop) can not quietly slip back after a few months. At the very least, we should consider that all requests are made here and not privately to one of the crats. Regards SoWhy 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That final point seems reasonable enough. No backdoor requests accepted. Majorly talk 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Has there been an instance when somebody "slipped in" and were resysopped by a 'crat when they actually had left under a cloud? Just curious. Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't have happened without further discussion, but it wasn't seen that TRM was unfit to regain the tools at the end of the day. I like to think I've since improved the way I review requests for re-access, but I agree with Rlevse that a 24-hour wait period is a good idea. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, TRM's re-cratting was subsequently confirmed by other bureaucrats and a motion from ArbCom. I'm sure you know this, but your wording could have been more clear. Nathan ^T 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Rather than "wasn't unfit", I should have said "was fit". Others confirmed him; and, of course, his bureaucratship is entirely legitimate. More discussion would have been best, though. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaranda/Secret was resysopped after resigning under a fair amount of cloud cover, enough that at least one bureaucrat stated he wouldn't give back the bit if requested. Fran Rogers (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is there any objection to this particular resysop? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoo, I missed a busy weekend. Sorry I wasn't around to weigh-in on the RfB, but it doesn't look like you needed me. This resysop looks entirely uncontroversial.

I'd suggest a 24 hour wait is appropriate. It gives enough time to avoid a mistake. And it's not such a terrible bar that it would stop someone wanting to hand in the tools and reclaim them later.

However, I have two concerns: 1) that we police this page to avoid inappropriate dramafests arising from sysops requesting tools back, but being attacked by those they've had conflicts with in the past 2) Perhaps we have a policy on this, but I'm ignorant - how do we handle requests from RTV new accounts of admins who can identify themselves privately to the crats and are requesting their tools back? I dimly remember a fuss about this happening once, but would appreciate a reminder or regularisation of what's agreed. Clearly, if we do permit this, not all the info can appear openly on BN. --Dweller (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RTV creates certain issues; there is a tendency on this project for it to be used as shorthand for "quietly changing accounts because of harassment/outing/other significant purpose." But our policy says RTV is walking out the door for good and never returning under any username, ever. Now, I *do* see a reason for having some process that permits the first, but it needs to be called something other than RTV, and be more clearly defined, because sometimes people get justifiably upset when someone who has claimed "RTV" has really just formally shut down one account and started another for some reason or other, and then seems to be tending the same gardens so to speak. Risker (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd want any of that handled through arbcom. I understand that there are times due to personal and safety issues that a break has to be made between the account that underwent the RfA and the new account, but I don't think that is our place as 'crats to re-hand out the tools where the community cannot see a direct connection between the RfA and the current user. This is NOT like a vacation, this /is/ a new account. ArbCom can make that decision and inform us, and, in that case only, that is handled via the crat e-mail list and not this board. Otherwise, everything MUST be handled openly, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the crats agreed then that admins who leave because of (say) harrassment, and wish to come back with tools through a fresh account without the bother of RfA, should approach Arbcom? --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Yes. There needs to be some record. And while non-sysop editors may contact the CU list, I think ArbCom needs to be involved when bits are being handed out. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Avi on this particular point, but I still think that for general uncontroversial resysop/crat requests, a 24 hour wait period is appropriate and not unreasonable. I also think this particular resysop was fine. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think that in regular cases a second set of eyes is more than enough, and that there shouldn;t be a time element :) -- Avi (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a short wait period should be required and 24 hours is not unreasonable---but I don't think we generally would have to wait 24 hours. It's not a matter of one or more sets of eyes, but a chance for somebody more familiar with the situation to say, "Hey this was under a cloud." The clock should not be based upon whether or not a 'crat has seen the initial request, others can investigate as well. The ONLY question is was there a "cloud/was the desysop an attempt to evade sanctions." I would suggest adding verbiage to the section on resysopping to indicate that it could "take up to 24 hours" for a resysop to occur. As is, nobody really expects INSTANT responses and an instant reaponse is not necessary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

18 minutes after Jafeluv announced his decision to return, Anonymous Dissident granted the request.

22 minutes after Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_17#The_Rambling_Man announced his decision to return, Anonymous Dissident granted the request.

If the complaints can be believed Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_17#The_Rambling_Man was named in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking which "proposed decision in that case began 3 days after he resigned". Ikip 08:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys... we're overthinking this to an extreme degree. Good ex-Admin = Automatic resysop. Bad ex-admin = No automatic resysop. "Bad" would be someone who was either stripped of the bit, or who dropped the bit to avoid having it stripped. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No secret admins

I don't believe there is community support for a process wherein an admin "disappears" and the adminship is secretly transferred to a new account. This has been perpetrated on editors in the past and then anyone who attempts to question it is basically cudgeled into silence. This is unfair. Secret admins are able to behave as gods, silencing anyone who questions their background, receiving no rebuke whatsoever from the people who secretly anointed them, and no accountability if they are continuing past abuses on a new account. Were this but hypothetical. It needs to be explicitly forbidden so no bureaucrat or steward ever abuses their power this way again. The creation of secret admins is probably one of the most egregious abuses of elite users against regular editors. I strongly believe there is almost no support for the practice of secret adminship. --JayHenry (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is important enough to be its own subheading. --JayHenry (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um Jay, is this is reference to the above section? Or some other section? Please clarify. Ikip 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently some people are confused here. This subthread is in response to the general issue, raised by Dweller above, about whether bureaucrats can secretly transfer the admin tools to a fresh account, on the grounds that there's a person controlling the account who was once an admin on a different account. I'm not talking about the specific case at the start of this thread (hence the subthread). I know general vs. specific can be a confusing distinction. --JayHenry (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you except when specifically directed by Arbcom. We elect ArbCom to be the final arbitors of editor behavior and bit dissemination removal. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Have to disagree with at least your choice of words. ArbCom may be the final arbitors of who has their bits removed, but the arbiters of who receives the bit has always been in the hands of the community. Although sadly this seems to be changing.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fair enough. However, the person who is changing their name is the same person who the community trusted in. The question is one of bit removal due to a change in username. I firmly believe there must be a record of this, in the event it ever happens (I do not personally recall any such case) but I am willing for that record t be in the hands of ArbCom if there is significant risk involved. So this is actually a matter of removal, not gifting, but I concur with your point and will change my sentence above. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this is simply untrue. In the case of a secret admin the community has no clue who the admin is. Did they resign under a cloud or not? Are they continuing disputes they had on a past account? Are they violating pledges they made on their RFA or not? All admins really ought to be linkable to their RFAs. --JayHenry (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the precedent is, and I'm not sure I like some of the hyperbole already in this thread, but equally I'm not too bothered by precedent unless it's been enshrined in our policies. It doesn't seem that it has been. On that basis, (unless someone argues persuasively) it seems to me there's no community consensus for us to regrant a bit to a new account in private, and, as I said above, I'd be happy to bounce any such request (currently notional) to Arbcom. --Dweller (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that I would be violating the WP:OUTING policy by discussing specifics. Don't you see what a ridiculous catch 22 this is for regular editors? --JayHenry (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but I do believe that there might be cases where IAR might be sanctioned. Namely, if there had been a release of personal identifying information about an account that should not have occurred. But in this case, I would expect there to be ArbCOM action or something significant justifying the action. It should NEVER be performed "just because".---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've only seen this happen one time, a couple of years ago, and even though the admin in question had a perfectly fine history it still turned into a smoking pile of shit, with a reconfirmation RfA and the whole drama works. I agree with Jay that people who want to RtV need to visibly earn (or, I suppose, re-earn) the trust of the community under a persistent identity. If this means it takes an RtV former administrator a year to get the bit again via RfA, it still beats having people who are administrators with essentially no visible history on the project. Nathan ^T 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The "secret admin" concept never worked. On the occasions it was attempted, the interest created by a new unexplained admin soon led to third parties deducing the account's previous identity. I doubt anyone would be well advised to pursue it, even if there was community consensus to allow it (which I doubt), and would be surprised if anyone chose to repeat the experiment. As a side note, I do not believe that ArbCom can require bureaucrats to promote users, anymore than it can require one user to block another. Past instances of so-called "secret admins" required a willing bureaucrat and ArbCom assent. WJBscribe (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be circles where the secret admins are known, but these are not the circles of regular editors. I know of at least two secret admins and I'm fairly involved as far as it goes, but I don't have time for IRC or WR (or wherever else the secret identities are discussed) and thus have no clue who they were when they passed RFA and have absolutely no faith that they are legitimate. I hope this thread has established broad agreement for the future that the practice does not have support. --JayHenry (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are willing to go out on the limb Jay, and talk openly about who you are talking about, this section is simply entertainment, and nothing else. Ikip 03:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not entertainment, because I'm trying to establish consensus to not allow this to happen again in the future. There's no dispute that secret admins have been created in the past, it's simply not allowed for regular editors like us to discuss it. Should be fairly obvious that this is a big problem. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I don't know how often you spend on policy pages like this, but this is the first I have ever heard of this problem. If you came here to reach a consensus, you will be disappointed. Who frequents Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard? It is not average editors. It is veteran editors, mostly admins and arbcom, who have a stake in the status quo. A RFC may get a little more support, but if this was approved by arbcom, there is no way a RFC is going to change a damn thing.

Unless you take a risk, including maybe risk your editing privileges, nothing will come of this. I am not privy nor follow many of these disputes, but the cases that come to mind, I believe editors have often risk their editing privileges to reveal these issues. Ikip 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of allowing "secret admins". It doesn't seem fair to make a user who's worked their way up to admin status start all over from nothing just because they were harassed into hiding. Besides, almost no one who starts over can really truly pull off a convincing "new user" disguise, and people will question them even so, possibly to the point of opposing their RfA. Moreover I think a "secret admin" would generally be willing to reveal their earlier account's identity to a trusted user. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm. The term "secret admins" seems a bit loaded too. I prefer "anonymous". Lots of admins are anonymous and if there are serious privacy issues associated with an account(like death threats or off wiki harassment) then I see no problem with changing back to an anonymous account. For the record, I have done it and it worked out well for me. I agree there needs to be a damn good reason. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, though I'll agree that there are damn good reasons at times (and I say that as someone that knows who you are... or at least I think I know...). Personally, I'd rather see admins who vanish over privacy concerns come back as a brand-new identity, which (unfortunately) means that they'd need to run RfA again. However, they'd have all the accumulated skill and ability that they previously possessed, which (in theory) should make RfA a slightly easier process for them. It also doesn't raise the eyebrows of those that would look at admin vanishings and figure out who got an "under the table" promotion shortly after. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with JayHenry. If an account retires and gives up the tools, the adminship should not be restored to a new account through bureaucrat from presumably the same user. If the departure was due to harassment or the like, then a resysop makes it extremely easy to find that person again. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RTV is exactly what is says: a right to vanish. Putting on a wig and a fake moustache is not vanishing so the policy does not apply. If there is an extreme situation where it is necessary for the good of the project to sysop a new account without an RfA, it should be done, but it should be extremely rare. When it is done there should be a prominent announcement about it so that everyone knows this is a "secret admin" and knows who it is that has given their word that the person can be trusted with the mop (ignoring rules quietly is a bad idea - it never stays quiet, so you might as well explain yourself from the start). A problem arises when there are complaints about the admin, since people won't know whether or not there is a history of such actions - for that reason ArbCom and the Crats should closely monitor any secret admins and come down very hard on any actions (particularly admin actions) that are unacceptable and that were also done with the old account. A comprehensive list of all controversial actions taking during that admin's past life should be compiled before the mop is given out and put somewhere all Arbs and Crats can see so that patterns with new actions are easy to spot. Putting together this list will be very time consuming (any admin that feels the need to disguise themselves will have plenty of controversy regarding them), which should discourage Arbs and Crats from doing it too often. --Tango (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed, is the editors who proudly wear the "vandalized x amount of times" on their user page, tend to be bullies. These are probably the editors who would be harassed, and who would then want to become secret admins. By claiming "harassment", whether real or fabricated, they would then be able to start fresh, without their nasty edit history dogging them, something which no editor is supposed to enjoy. Ikip 05:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think that if anyone wishes to change usernames in such a way as to completely sever themselves from any previous account, they should be required to go through RfA again. As they are starting over, they should start over, including not having any of the extra bits they may have had under a previous account. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If JayHenry is willing to raise the alarm but not name in names, unless I am missing something, wouldn't it be very easy to check which editors suddenly became admins against the formal successful RFA list? Not much of a secret

Did admin Jafeluv have a secret admin account for 2 months? Whether or not this is true, this is the logical conclusion editors will formulate, since JayHenry originally raises the "secret admin" account issue in the thread about Jafelu above. Ikip 07:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) thanks for the clarification that this is not the case Jay and Dweller. This is the problem with secrets, editors sometimes come to the wrong conclusion trying to fill in the missing pieces. My apologies to both Jafeluv and Jay. Ikip 14:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was me that raised it, and I have no knowledge of it having taken place with any particular admin, other than I'm dimly aware that it has. Your conclusions are incorrect. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with JayHenry. If someone invoked their RTV (notwithstanding the fact they're not even supposed to come back!) then they should go through the motions again. –xeno^talk 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that by my math, Harej's request to join BAG has been open more than seven days now (7 days, 16 hours). No hurry to the other crats, but as his nominator, I can't close it, so someone else needs to. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the template so out of date on SoWhy's RfB? --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had been wondering that, too. Considered manually putting the tally in, but that didn't seem like a good long term solution. Useight (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm familiar with how the program works, and confident that manually updating it from time to time isn't going to cause any malfunctions. And if you look at the history of the page you can see that other people do it too; it's not just me. As for why the tally has been slow to update lately in general, rather than going nearly once per hour like it used to, you'll have to ask X! about that. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We r fatally flawed. :) Chutznik (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Any 'crats interested in voicing an opinion here: WT:RFA#Unchecking the box? -- Avi (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking‎. -- Avi (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's about to snow soon. Anyone want to close it? (I would but I voted). ~DC _{Talk To Me} 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the nom-statement and the answers to the questions, it's clearly a joke nomination at best, it could probably be deleted with no complaints. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 08:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, my old account is User:Ta bu shi da yu. However, while I retired from Wikipedia some time ago, I never resigned my adminship as there was never a problem with my adminship conduct. However, I have since come out of retirement, so I was wondering if I could have the admin rights transferred from Ta bu shi da yu to Tbsdy lives?

Alternatively, I would be happy to ask for this on WP:RFA, however I believe that there is precedent to transfer admin rights from one account to another.

I'm posting this here as I'm in a bit of quandry on what to do, and I'd like some feedback from the wider admin community. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to ask at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. There's nothing we can do here, but I don't see a problem Rodhullandemu 00:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go to m:SRP and request the old account be desysopped, I would be able to re-sysop the new accounts. The prior linkage between the two accounts should be sufficient evidence for the stewards (also the fact the real life identity of the prior account was known and corresponds to you would be sufficient). MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers folks, you're correct, I should have posted here. Good advise, I'll post a message. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rights removed from the first account, MBisanz. Please update m:SRP when done? Kylu (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to post a response at AN, but the thread was removed while I was typing. As a non-admin I find this "adminship by the back door" unacceptable. Retiring or resigning should mean the same on Wikipedia as it does anywhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand, however my thoughts have been that my prior experience and contributions to Wikipedia would be enough to have the adminship rights transferred. Possibly others may not agree, which is fine - if enough people object then I'll resubmit to RFA. My reason for retiring a few years ago was that there was a lot going on in my life (got married, had a child, work extemely busy) and I was burning out. It was never about conduct or any real disagreements with Wikipedia itself (I had the odd grumble, but everyone else does too!). - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? If there were no issues with the adminship, requiring reconfirmation seems to me to be supremely pointless and a waste of everybody's time. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, yep, as long as we're assured the two users are one-and-the-same, and that resignation from the previous account was non-controversial, there seems little issue here to complain. However, I would hope that Tbdsy lives would be open enough to perhaps a notice on his/her talkpage stating his previous existence here on Wikipedia, unless there are extraneous circumstances preventing him/her from wishing to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... my user page says that "I used to be Ta bu shi da yu before I scrambled my password." and my signatures says who I used to be. However, I've made the following edit to the other account's user page, so there can be no confusion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I don't believe this is really a back door situation. TBSDY is being quite open about his former account, which still has admin rights. This is just a switch from one name to another. Even I find this completely uncontroversial. Majorly talk 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So why can't he use his previous account? DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, he scrambled the password. Not sure why every re-sysop has to turn into a meta-debate... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If eveer re-sysop is turning into a meta-debate, is that perhaps indicative that there is not a strong consensus for this means of getting the tools? DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He decided to use a new name. What's wrong with that? A rename would have been better, but he's being open about who he was so what's the deal? Majorly talk 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just have a VP (Policy) discussion about this and decide on some standards so every discussion doesn't become a meta-debate about it? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Juliancolton is correct, I scrambled my password on the old account and blanked my email address. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that your last edit as Ta bu shi da yu was this one, which indicates that you were blocked for 1 hour shortly before you decided to retire. At first glance, I would say that that does look controversial to me. I had not known about this before now, though, and haven't seen any of your 3000-odd edits as Tbsdy lives, or seen whether this has been discussed before. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I object to Nat having blocked me, IMO I was not vote stacking. I'd actually totally forgotten about this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know why he feels an RfAd is not necessary this time, when he submitted to one (or two) after the last time he retired and then change his mind later. DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also just like to check that I've read the block log and the history of his userpage correctly, blocked at 03.20 on the 16th for vote-stacking, retired by email to another editor announced at 03.44. Is that right? DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you read the block log correctly. It will be examined in further detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall I posted to a few talk pages about Trivia Wikipedia:Facebook discussion. Didn't vote stack, object to that even being in the block history. Don't recall that Nat said anything to me before hand, he said that he was but he said that he was "getting my attention" by blocking me. I was also accused of making a sock-puppet account earlier on, incidentally (had to look up my old archives!), but I created an account that was only to prevent the use of an inappropriate signature. And I informed everyone I did it. You can see discussion here. It's a pity that a few people undertook the actions they did, given my contributions to the project up to this point. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I also got the feeling (from a brief glance at the edit history) that the CANVASS argument was marginally tenuous (in my opinion) as TBSDY was addressing users on that particular "facebook" page to let them know the page was subject to a deletion discussion. But that is just my opinion. And it was 2.5 years ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict... I was about strike that out and note that. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Retiring while blocked is not retiring in uncontroversial circumstances. There were also previous incidents of vandalism which derailed the first RfAd after his first "retirement". I think that this request merits consideration by the community. DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you might think that, but while I was frustrated by a number of things on Wikipedia, I was mostly burnt out. I never "retired while blocked", but certainly that might have increased my overall personal stress. If you wish to think this, then that's fine but I don't think that's a correct understanding of the situation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

From the block log [20] and the history of your old userpage, the announcement of your retirement was made by another editor at your request while the block was in effect [21] (or that is how it looks to me. I did ask above if I had read it correctly). DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My memory must be failing me. That's not what I recall, but yes that does indeed look to be the case. Also, the other thing that derailed my adminship was discussed to death, and if you look at the second adminship you'll notice that was all resolved there. I'm not really sure why you are bringing this up again. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If people are concerned about the last block or anything else, then I am willing to withdraw. Which I personally think would be a pity, because this was really just a request to transfer my existing adminship to my new account. Nobody had indicated to me previously that they wanted me to be desysopped :( - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The general definition I have seen used over the years, is that a user may regain adminship that they voluntarily resigned so long as the resignation was not under a cloud. The definition of the term "under a cloud" has been taken to mean if a person resigned in order to avoid some process that has the reasonable possibility of resulting in a desysopping (RFAR, RFC, etc). It is the standard practice that a block or general inactivity, in and of itself, is not grounds for removal of userrights (see generally 1, 2 (excepting IPBE, ACC, BOT, CU, and OV per specific policies)). I have also heard it described that "not under a cloud" should not be taken to mean "in harmony with the universe," but rather "did so to avoid possible desysopping." At the moment I am reviewing the links Duncan has provided above and also waiting the 24 hours recommended by prior crat discussions in actioning this request. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I didn't retire to avoid any adminship discussion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to deny TBSDY his adminship. He retired in good standing and returns in good standing. The change of account name is immaterial - there is no secret about his being the same user, and no reason to insist that adminship be associated with a user account rather than a user. And perhaps it would not be irrelevant to mention that TBSDY was one of our finest administrators before his retirement. I favor returning his adminship without further delay. — Dan | talk 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Retiring "under a cloud" is, in general, taken to mean resigning the bits when there is danger of their being removed forcibly. Being blocked for a short amount of time does not lead to being desysopped. We have plenty of admins who have been blocked. If the only issue is a short block, I would not view that as "under a cloud". An indef would be a different matter. -- Avi (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, as someone who's researched this specific matter in the past, I see no issue with reassigning the rights. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also I should note that if Tdsdy is resysopped, he could agree to have his usernames swapped, so that the account he continues to edit with is named Ta bu shi da yu (or anything for that matter), but the point being that the rename log (as well as the userrights log) can be used to ensure identification to others. MBisanz ^talk 09:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—if Tdsdy hadn't scrambled the password, the admin rights would still be intact, block or no block. This is clearly not "under a cloud". Resysop. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

What evidence is there that Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and user Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person? WJBscribe (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They talk the same way. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Now that's funny! hydnjo (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And he's edited under the new account for two years without being caught as an impersonator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting he's an impersonator, just questioning whether enough has been done to establish identity. I'm sure we have many much older undiscovered socks, so "undiscovered for two years" doesn't amount to establishing identity. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit contradictory. If noone is suggesting I'm an impersonator, then it sounds like everyone agrees about my identity. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all contradictory. Not thinking someone is an imposter is not the same as that person establishing their identity satisfactorily. It's like the difference between saying "I don't think you ate my pasty" and "I know it wasn't you who ate my pasty". DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As an idea, a user named "Ta bu shi da yu" uploaded a file to commons within the past three months, so the CU log should not be scraped for a commons CU to check and compare with logs here. This is why GPG keys and confirmed identities are a good idea. -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If he still has control of the other SUL accounts under the old name, can't he regain access to the original account here through them? DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• My evidence is that User:Ta bu shi da yu uploaded File:Everyone at the London Meetup Jan 2nd 2006.JPG which had an individual in the picture that matches the person in File:Ouch Emily.JPG. Also, it matches the caption for File:Sydney Meetup 2007-04-25 Restaurant (4).jpg, which indicates the person in the picture is the same person. Lastly, the original User:Ta bu shi da yu was outed on Wikipedia-Watch's Hivemind at some point and I facebook friended the person listed in that entry some time ago, who also appears to be the same as the person in all the images. Now, it also appears that TBSDY has met at least several other editors who can probably confirm his identity, I've never met him or interacted with him at length, so I can't say that, but it appears that Werdna, Jimbo, Thebainer, and other trusted Australians probably could. The reason he can't use SUL is that it appears he did not link the accounts before hashing the password, so even if he could access another wiki, the account on enwiki would appear to belong to someone else for reason of having a different password. MBisanz ^talk 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tim Starling or Angela could confirm my identity. Also, not sure if this helps, but I just made the following change to my commons user page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did not resign

I place store in Treasury Tag's comment above. It's merely a sideshow that the returning user cannot simply pick up his adminship where he left off because he scrambled his account. The fact is that he did not resign his adminship. As such, our pontifications about whether or not he left under a cloud are irrelevant, although interesting. In my opinion, we have no grounds in policy or existing consensus for Crat actions for withholding the request, as he did not resign, whether under a cloud or not. --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the only issue is confirmation that the two accounts are being run by the same person, and I think that there is enough evidence for that (MBisanz, the commons changes). Does anyone else have any specific issues? Will, are you satisfied? -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. WJBscribe (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Avi's re-flagging. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Given the information presented here, I concur with Avi's reflagging. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I concur as well. Glad to have you back, Ta bu. — Dan | talk 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks folks :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm a bit confused when it comes to clerking WP:CHU at the moment, since different crats seem to have a different approach to renames when accounts on other wikis are involved. The case I am referring to are renames that involved renaming a user here to a name that is already taken on other projects but where no SUL account exists. For example, on Wikipedia:Changing_username#Cipher_2009_.E2.86.92_Cipher_.2710, Avi says that the user could usurp the account Cipher on this wiki, while Will declines a request at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Elizabeth_Bathory_.E2.86.92_Luna because the user with the strongest claim to the SUL account would be forced to give it up (and he says that SUL will be enabled to be automatic?) then. So I wonder: Should we tell users requesting a name that is already taken on other projects but where no SUL account exists that this is not possible or that it's possible or that it's only possible if there are no edits on any project? I sympathize with the first option personally, but I just thought there should be a general guideline for those cases. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is another such request (currently active) at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Speedoguy_.E2.86.92_Speedo. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And Sławomir Biały2 → Slawek for that matter. Were it up to me alone, I would decline those requests, but I will wait and see if a consensus otherwise emerges from this discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I believe we all concur that we want the user with the strongest claim to the SUL to retain it. When it comes to Cipher, the user trying to usurrp Cipher has more, and more recent, edits on EnWiki than the other users, so I feel that they have the stronger right. I have not checked the Luna claim, but it is likely that the other editor has more, and more recent, edits on their home wiki which would forestall the usurpation here. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would point out is that bureaucrats exercise discretion individually when granting or declining renames, which means we won't always be singing from the same hymm sheet. That said, it's probably best if our approach doesn't differ too much. I don't tend to review in detail the instances where bureaucrats have granted/refused renames (except perhaps for very new crats to offer advice) and I suspect others don't either. You're therefore in a better place than we are to notice if we're being inconsistent, as you have here.
I would decline a request by any enwiki user to usurp User:Cipher, regardless of the number of edits they have made or recentness of either account's edits, as I did with Luna. Performing such a rename can alter which account is recognised by the software as the "home wiki" of an account. The effect of renaming an enwiki user with many more edits than the current "home wiki" account is to displace that user's right to create the global account. If the person renamed creates a global account, the previous "home wiki" user will not be able to create any more accounts with that name.
The English wikipedia community has appointed me to be a bureaucrat, which allows me to rename users on this project. Our local policy even allows me to rename enwiki accounts without GFDL significant contributions to allow other users to use them. But no other project has appointed me as a bureaucrat. I am therefore very reluctant to take an action on this wiki that affects a user on another project in this way. If across all wikis, a username is taken but has zero (or no significant) contributions, I tend to be OK with the rename. I am not however happy with determining that an active enwiki user with 10,000 contributions is worth more than a frwiki user with 100 who no longer edits. Given that enwiki often has editors with higher numbers of contributions than its sister project, it would seem to me to allow people to muzzle in on popular names all too easily.
I also see little point in creating new SUL conflicts that will need to be resolved later - there are far too many as it is. Renames to a particular chosen name are never necessary. They are something which someone way want and which may make them happier, but I do not think rename requests should be granted where deterimentally effect a good faith user on another project, even if their contributions have been few and they are no longer active.
Back in July 2008, I noted this issue and proposed on this noticeboard that "Unless the name has zero edits (or zero non-trivial edits) across all projects, I do not think we should consider it available to users here." Those who participated in that discussion agreed with this approach and I presumed that it continued to be taken by other crats. I am not aware of any more recent discussion about these issues since then but, if consensus may have changed, they may warrant renewed discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, I agree we need a new discussion and to hammer out what we should or should not do. I'd like to ask any passing stewards to drop in as well, as they deal with multiple wikis more than we do. As an aside, please see meta:Help:Unified login#Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account?. -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly on the same page. I think I'm slightly more lenient; if a user on another project with, say, 50 edits hasn't edited in a number of years, I'd consider passing the rename. It all depends on individual circumstance. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm with AD here. I'll generally not permit, but am prepared to be flexible, depending on circumstances, another being that there are two or three accounts of the same name, none of which have more than a few edits. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I remain very uncomfortable with appointing myself judge of the worth of a user on another project who has made 50 edits and is not currently active. For me, the cost of displacing a good faith user outweighs the happiness performing a rename might give the enwiki user who wants to be renamed. If consensus is now against me, I will cease to decline these requests, but I am not willing to perform them. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is against you; as you say, we're able to exercise discretion, so it's not crucial we're all on exactly the same page. I for one agree with what you're saying, in effect. And, I don't think I'd pass the same rename if a frivolous reason were given. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, you noted on Elizabeth Bathory's request that the devs want to turn on SUL to be automatic? Is this correct and if so, what's the status on it? Will they force a rename for everyone not having the SUL account? I think that should be taken into consideration when discussing this question. Regards SoWhy 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's something that's been discussed on and off. Last I heard about this, it was suggested that SUL would ultimately be enabled automatically, with accounts that lost out being automatically renamed to something like User:Foo@enwiki, making way for the global rights holder for User:Foo. I don't know if that's still the plan or when this will happen. It may take a long time, but then again a lot of the current problems have arisen because we didn't really believe SUL would happen and then suddenly it did. The whole point of SUL is only having one user per name across all projects. Anything that creates a situation with several people holding the same name across different projects is likely to be only a temporary solution to what we're considering. Of course, sometimes temporary ends up being a long time. WJBscribe (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. (by Avi who said "any passing stewards" :) and directly on my talk by WJBScribe, thanks for the heads up!) If I understand the question to be whether en:wp 'crats should decline renames if the target is a name used (extensively? at least somewhat) on other wikis even if that name has not yet been SUL'ed, then I think I agree with WJBScribe (again if I correctly understand his position)... that the right approach is to decline it. There is more to WMF than just keeping en:wp users happy.

Perhaps if SUL became automatic this would not arise, but avoidance of SUL problems (in advance) seems goodness. While I think 'crat discretion is a good thing, I think in this case it might be a good idea for the 'crats to reach consensus on this matter and then self enforce this as a policy, for the sake of consistency. In fact I thought this WAS policy already. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar, thank you for dropping by! Firstly, each and every case has to be judged individually, in my opinion, depending on how the name is used throughout the wikiverse. Here, the specific case in question is an active EnWiki user wanting to usurp an unused EnWiki name for which no SUL exists but for which there is a separate frwiki and ruwiki user, one of which has not edited since 2008, and the other since 2006. The EnWiki user is the most active of any, and I have placed a link on both the frwiki and ruwiki pages. If the EnWiki user had the SUL, he would easily have the high ground to usurp the SUL wikimedia-wide due to activity. Therefore, I think that if the user has the right to usurp the name on EnWiki, and then wants to create the SUL, that is preferable. It is not making EnWiki users happy, it is making the most active wikiMedian wanting this name happy. We're happy to refuse usurpations when other project users have first claim; here I believe the EnWiki user has the best claim. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. In this particular case I agree that the en:wp user may well have the "best" claim (and I would trust the judgment of the crats who had looked at this in more detail about whose claim is "best") but my point still stands, I would be conservative and not grant. There is a gray area where user X may have the "best" claim, but "not by much". Where do you draw the line? How much "better" does the "best" claim need to be before it's open and shut? 2008 is not that long ago (in this example.. that is the last edit date of the user that might have the second best claim). What if it was Jan 2008, or June 2008, or Dec 2008? What if it was June 2009? What if it was Dec 2009? Some one of those examples, surely, veers into the gray area, or beyond. Just leaving it to "judgment" is going to result in hard feelings sooner or later, especially if the judgment call would differ from one crat to the next, as appears to be the case here. It may be better to formulate crisp policy, and be conservative in that formulation, and then stick to it. Meta may or may not be a guide, the policy there for crosswiki usurpation is very conservative, IIRC. Which may be for the best.... let everyone rename their userids to be unique. (easy for me to say, I got there first with Lar which is not necessarily all that unique a name although it's not as bad as David, Michael, Susan, etc) ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is to be new guidance, I'd like to highlight the option I took (Speedoguy → Speedo). In my case several different non-English accounts had been minimally active (so no complete SUL would ever be likely) and as the Spanish account was the most used I took the initiative and left a note on the user's page in Spanish and English asking if they were interested in the English account. After 7 days it seemed reasonable to assume tacit consent. Perhaps this option for similar scenarios may be recommended, particularly if the requester is prepared to do the spade-work and potentially eased by having a standard multi-language notice template to add to the relevant same-name accounts? Speedo (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I left messages on the Cipher ruwiki and Cipher frwiki on Sunday; likely they aren't even the same person, but I cannot be sure. -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New accounts

Am I right in thinking that mediawiki software will permit someone to create a new account as User:Foo on en: even if someone has five active User:Foo accounts on different wikis, each of which has thousands of edits, but they've not yet unified their account? --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And were that new user to then make more edits than the other users with that name, they would become able to create a global account. WJBscribe (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm not sure why anyone would be bothered that a Crat would carefully and occasionally grant an account name with SUL issues, where the circumstances looked right, when that's set against masses of new accounts being (no doubt) created by new users each week with no checks and balances whatsoever. I'm therefore happy to continue occasionally allowing an experienced user to change to an en: name that has a de: equivalent with 3 edits, all made in 2005. Especially if the user is happy to understand that they may not be able to usurp the de: account. And I'm happy to continue to do this until mediawiki prevents new accounts from clashing with SUL unregistered accounts, as it'd be daft not to do so. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community.

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A recently resigned admin, subject of a current RfArb, has stated that he is not prevented from regaining tools via this process. At least 2 current Arbs have said that he is so prevented. This diff [22] is relevant. Would bureaucrats be so good as to issue clarification of their understanding of policy and consensus in such a case? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when you say "this process" do you mean Crats regranting tools without need for RfA? --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm recused both as a crat and an arb clerk in the specific matter in question, but I can state that based on past practice, crats usually do not determine the process required for a user to regain the tools until such time as a user presents the question (like U.S. courts require an actual case or controversy to make a ruling). Arbcom has in the past though specified the process for a user to regain the bit in advance of their requesting it and sometimes the user themselves declares one of the normal means shall be unavailable to them (they claim they will not seek crat re-bitting or arbcom re-granting in favor of an RFA). MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Not a bureaucrat, but) I would say that any unbanned former administrator is free to submit an RfA or request resyssoping here unless explicitly forbidden from doing so by an ArbCom motion, remedy or enforcement ruling or a community sanction. In this case, I image that if the MZMcBride 2 case is not opened, the Committee will pass a motion establishing the circumstances under which the editor in question can seek to become an administrator again.  Skomorokh  19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have there been any previous cases where Arbs individually (that is, not in a motion or formal case) stated that a resigned admin would have to use RfAd rather than cratadmining, and the former arb applied here? And if so, what happenned? DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can't think of any off-hand, possibly something involving Majorly or Secret, maybe Essjay or Mercury, but again that is just my speculation of situations that were complex enough that it could have occurred there. MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I should very much prefer to see the Arbitration Committee take the case and then decide whether MZMcBride ought to be (or have been) desysopped. His having resigned the bit does not resolve the matter, as several arbitrators believe, precisely because the question remains whether he will have to apply at RFA if he wants to regain his adminship. If the case does not proceed, we will have a very hard time deciding whether the circumstances of his resignation require him to pass another RFA. MZMcBride indicated to me yesterday that he did not think his adminship was at risk in the arbitration case; the arbitrators' remarks suggesting that it was seem all to have been made after his resignation and in reaction to it. I suppose it could be argued that MZM should have known that his adminship would be at risk in a case like this, but I don't know how this question could be decided in a principled way.

In sum, unless the arbitration committee takes the case, the matter remains in a muddle. The only complete solution I can see is for the case to proceed: the least MZM deserves is an official and unequivocal decision from the arbitration committee (not one or two of its members individually) as to whether he should be desysopped or not. If they cannot be bothered to give him this, we (the bureaucrats) will be stuck having to clean up the mess sooner or later, and we do indeed seem to be without precedent to help us along. — Dan | talk 21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am assuming that our vague rule that a resigning adminstrator may request the bit back without another RFA only if he/she did not resign "under a cloud" is to be phrased more precisely as follows: "under circumstances in which his/her adminship is either explicitly at risk or is the subject of substantial controversy." Still we're left with some imprecisions - how much and what sort of controversy is "substantial"? - but it's better than the purely metaphorical "under a cloud." — Dan | talk 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, they do help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The pertinent question is would you resysop without an RfA under these circumstances? Points about the vagueness of the practice and the circumstances are well taken, but should we understand your comments to mean that, as a result, you would resysop if MZMcBride asked it of you? Nathan ^T 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The point of my comments was that I would rather avoid having to make that decision, since I'm not entirely sure how I would go about it. It would probably involve:

1. Reading the request for arbitration and all associated comments very closely, to see if and by whom MZM's adminship was considered at risk before he resigned.
2. Looking at similar closed cases to get a sense of whether, in a case like this, it might reasonably have been expected that MZM would be desysopped, or at least that his desysopping would have been proposed and debated by arbitrators.

I hope you won't mind if I don't put myself to all of this trouble to answer a hypothetical question, and I hope you can see why I would rather the arbitrators simply proceed with the case. :-) — Dan | talk 22:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have said nearly exactly the same thing. I would add that I would weigh the opinion of the two sitting arbs if it came to our purvue to make the decision, but that's already part of "all associated comments" above. - Taxman ^Talk 23:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See Request for arbitration/Philwelch: " Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion. An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted." WJBscribe (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca (talk · contribs · count) has requested, at Meta SRP, the reinstatement of her sysop tools on en.wikipedia. She previously held admin, oversight, and checkuser access and said rights were removed at her own request. Thanks. Kylu (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note Kylu, I seem to recall Rebecca resigned without incident, so I do not see why the tools cannot be restored after the standard 24 hour waiting period. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I would object to this. While Rebecca may have resigned in good standing, she also has authored 35 unreferenced biographies of living people over the past five years, which she has not even begun to fix. To me, this strongly suggests that she is out of touch with the current expectations for administrators and ought to go through a reconfirmation RfA to see if the community still has trust in her. NW (Talk) 03:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with NW, actually. It'd be one thing to regrant admin, that's within the 'crat remit but all advanced permissions should be reviewed by ArbCom first. She certainly does not have my confidence. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • As best as I can tell, she is only asking for admin back, but obviously I'm going to follow practice and wait 24 hours before deciding (either myself or another crat). MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I strongly feel that 1) the "objection" opinions are invalid provided that Rebecca resigned uncontroversially, and 2) to comment on such a request as a "wait" without finding the diffs or commenting on the case in a way that contributes information not opinion is invalid. Therefore, were I or another bureaucrat to produce the diffs proving lack of controversy, a re-promotion could occur at any time and not after an arbitrary, non-standard 24 hour wait period. Andrevan@ 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Err, administrator is a position of community trust. If the community expresses they don't trust somebody with the position, it would be inappropriate to reassign the bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Is there any known abuse of the bit in this case? — Rlevse • Talk • 05:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
              • Not yet. "I'm also off to get my bit back so I can undo any against-policy deletions" seems to show a pretty clear intent to mix it up in high controversy areas right from the return. Seems to me waiting 24 hours is a good idea (I thought you guys made that policy ?) ++Lar: t/c 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Happily, we've avoided ever making any crat policies in favor of adopting informal best practices; somehow we've managed it on mere collegiality, probably the last area on the wiki that has. MBisanz ^talk 06:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • Sorry. I thought you guys made that 24 hour delay an informal best practice? ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                    • Given her stated reasons for wanting her access back, I will not be restoring her admin rights. That said, I do this because I am volunteer and cannot be made to do anything, not because I think her request falls outside the rules. I choose not to be the one to action it. I leave it up to other bureaucrats whether they are personally comfortable restoring the rights in the circumstances. WJBscribe (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be any log of her receiving the bit here. Did she change her username? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• The account she was renamed from, User:Ambi, pre-dates the userrights log. MBisanz ^talk 06:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Aha. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] I agree completely with Andrevan: failing to return the bit would amount to ad-hoc desysopping on the basis of a few objections from people that happened by a noticeboard used primarily for other business. This is plainly a flawed procedure, and moreover I should not like to see it become precedent. Rebecca resigned without controversy, so we should reinstate her at once. (I don't even find the waiting period particularly necessary, and in response to a query above, it is certainly not required by any policy.) — Dan | talk 09:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about the 24 hour idea, but strongly argue that we have no community-endorsed power to withhold returning the bit to former admins who did not resign in order to avoid desysop / "under a cloud". I've seen no evidence that Rebecca was under a cloud when she gave in her mop so we should grant it back to her. Discussions about checkuser and any other tools are a red herring on this page, as Crats don't grant them. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted something to wikien-bureaucrats. Please review it before taking any action here. Happy‑melon 11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why I think creating wikien-bureaucrats was a mistake and choose not be a part of it. Whether someone resigned controversially should be capable of determination on the wiki, and decisions like these being made behind closed doors undermines what - to date - had always been a totally open part of the project.

If there is "secret" evidence that Rebecca should not be an admin, I suggest you send it to ArbCom. They can then pass a motion preventing Rebecca regaining her adminship (or ask the crats to hold off for a while) if they think it appropriate.

Whether Rebecca was, or would be, a good admin is beyond the remit of bureaucrats to decide. If she resigned uncontroversially, any crat is free to restore her admin rights. If someone feels that should not happen, or should be reversed, I think they should make their case to ArbCom. WJBscribe (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please restore her bit now. Please don't expand that messy controversy to this page. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A summary of my stance:

1. I have seen the email on the list. It concerns issues that significantly postdate Rebecca's resignation of her bit.
2. I've stated on the list and will now state here that I'm uncomfortable discussing this offwiki.
3. It is Arbcom's role to decide if someone behaves in a manner that means they do not deserve adminship.
4. Once someone has the mop, it is our role only to decide if there was sufficient controversy when they resigned, for us to believe they should not be regranted.
5. Only if an Arbcom statement is issued instructing us not to regrant the tools, should we otherwise withold them, as it would be daft to reissue and Arbcom then strip them immediately.

As it is my assessment that 4 has not been demonstrated and 5 has not [yet?] happened, we should regrant Rebecca her mop. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also seen the emails on the list and agree this should be handled onwiki. I further agree that Arbcom needs to indicate to the crats if they have an issue with Rebecca holding adminship since it is the height of bureaucracy to grant the tools simply so Arbcom can remove them. But, I also agree with WJB's view that crats as individuals cannot be compelled to act, so I will not be taking action in this matter and will not object to action other crats may take. MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is i. evidence being circulated on wikien-bureaucrats that some consider a reason not to re-grant admin rights, and ii. a belief that ArbCom is the appropriate body to determine whether admin rights ought to be re-granted, might someone consider forwarding that evidence to ArbCom? I believe that there's no overlap between the lists, since Rlevse doesn't appear to be subscribed to wikien-bureaucrats. This is my request only, and should not be taken as an indication that ArbCom is currently considering the question of whether Rebecca's bit should be restored. Steve Smith (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, it was my understanding the stuff being sent to the crats list was being cc'd to the oversight-l list. Aren't you on that? MBisanz ^talk 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, probably because I just got OS yesterday. Perhaps the other arbs will the Arb list in, then. Steve Smith (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen the mystery email, but will respect Mbiz/WJB's decision not to act, but I also agree with those who have stated that the principle question is did they resign under a cloud? I do not see having 35 unreferenced BLP's as grounds to prevent a re-adminship (although it might be grounds to oppose in the first place.) That being said, if there is evidence that Rebecca did something worthy of being desysopped while she was without the bit, then I think it is up to ArbCOM to put an emergency temporary injunction on the request while it is investigated. If they don't, then I do have a problem with failing to re-instate the bit---we should encourage people to surrender it when they depart---by changing the rules, we create an incentive not to give it up. The purpose of the 24 hour wait is not to perform a mini-RfA, but to ensure that the person resigned in good standing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the nature of the emails sent to -crats that is confusing us. We aren't used to dealing with muddied things like this. MBisanz ^talk 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I can probably be a bit more clear, since the email is also been cc'd to oversight-l, we don't actually know what other groups of functionaries are doing with regard to it and therefore are having trouble calibrating our actions to avoid intentional conflict with theirs where possible. MBisanz ^talk 15:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, some general comments. I agree that issues of whether Rebecca would be a good or bad admin are above our "pay grade," and that, under typical circumstances, so is considering private evidence (particularly that not disclosed in detail). I also agree that the issue mentioned on the list raises sufficient concern that waiting for arbcom is reasonable, not just to eliminate (per Matt) bureaucracy, but also to prevent drama if Arbcom does have concerns and has to move to reverse an explicit de-sysoping and instead can just note the existence of a cloud. I also agree that off-wiki discussion is, in general, bad and private evidence (particularly when there is some doubt on the existence/severity of the issues in question, as when I closed Jake Wartenberg's RFA this summer) should not, in general, be reason for hesitating (however, I did not intend to set any kind of precedent in that case, and since I did not see any claimed evidence there, I am not convinced such a precedent would apply here). Finally, I can confirm that, as far as I can determine from the mailing list discussion, no significantly false statements of fact have been made in this thread. So, in short - we're still about halfway through the 24 hour hold, which there's relatively strong precedent for even in typical resysoppings (whatever that may mean). So, why not let the hold run, let Europe and America both get home from work, and see whether Arbcom either explicitly states the existence of a cloud, or explicitly tells us to go ahead. If neither happens, unlikely, we can go from there. -- Pakaran 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  FYI, the committee is aware of this issue and sees no reason to intervene at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 16:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks Coren, in that case, I personally see no reason not to reflag after the hold concludes and, assuming no objections here, will most likely do so this evening if not beat to it. -- Pakaran 16:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  I note that WJBscribe above has said "Given her stated reasons for wanting her access back, I will not be restoring her admin rights. That said, I do this because I am volunteer and cannot be made to do anything, not because I think her request falls outside the rules. I choose not to be the one to action it. I leave it up to other bureaucrats whether they are personally comfortable restoring the rights in the circumstances." As one bureaucrat has declined to act (WJB) two bureaucrats have indicated that they would (Pakaran, Dweller), I think a greater discussion among the bureaucrats is warranted. NW (Talk) 16:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  Both of the two that indicated they would not restore it indicated that it was up to others to do so... not that they opposed restoring the bit... heck one even essentially wrote that it wasn't the 'crats role to deny her the bit, only that he wasn't going to be the one to restore it. But, while I will respect their decision not to act, the proper resolution was reached. The 'crats job is not define policy/procedure, but rather to follow it. In this case, the process would be to restore the bit. The only time where it shouldn't be done is A) it could be shown that she stepped down under a cloud or B) there was an extraordinary concern that arose since she stepped down. Something that would have gotten ArbCOM to step in and say, "wait." ArbCOM was notified and indicated that they were not going to act, so the steps were followed perfectly.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for that clarification, Coren. My comments both on- and off-wiki have, I hope, been not so much "don't resysop because X" as "don't perfrorm an action that you currently cannot reverse (and whose reversal causes much contention) until X has been reviewed." There is no reason why further discussion could not occur on-wiki, but it will be a fairly featureless conversation. My primary contention, and I speak now in general and not about this specific situation, is that it is indeed "daft" and "the height of bureaucracy" for the bureaucrats to say "X resigned uncontroversially, so the current situation is irrelevant"; because a rule like that is outright dangerous, not just head-in-the-sand thinking. I would expect the bureaucrats to use their judgement not necessarily to arbitrate whether a concern X is valid, but to judge when to defer their technical role until the appropriate body, generally ArbCom, have judged that validity. And, where appropriate, to be proactive in making that approach to the relevant body. And, when there is nothing that can be legitimately said on-wiki, I do think that it is over-simplistic to say that it nonetheless should be. That way lies needless drama, far more than the alternative of "What are you waiting for? We sent something to ArbCom. Oh, ok." The bureaucrats and ArbCom hold the rope on both sides of the pulley with respect to the sysop bit. It is ludicrous to deny that they should work together where appropriate. Happy‑melon 16:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's get to the heart of the matter. Will somebody restore the bit now, or do you all want to wait a while to extend this fine theatre? Jehochman ^Brrr 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, and given how much less dramatic this would have been if a hold period sufficient for any concerns to be raised and reviewed were standard practice, I don't think that continuing to push to accelerate the process is a good idea, no. Either in general or in this case in particular. Happy‑melon 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that enough Crats have said we'll wait the 24hrs out for you not to be concerned we'll accelerate it unduly. --Dweller (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

:) Happy‑melon 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See below - my betting tipster business is a runaway success. --Dweller (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's my cut? ;p ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You can have 100% of the losses. --Dweller (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! I guess it really is a cut... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As there is technically no 24-hour wait period policy or guideline (even though one was discussed), and as there are no substantial reasons given for not returning it, and as most (all?) of the 'crats who have participated here have indicated they don't see any valid reason for the bit to not be returned, and as ArbCom has indicated they have chosen not to intervene, and (finally) as Rebecca did not give up the bit under a cloud of any sort, I have restored the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent decision. — Dan | talk 17:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to this outcome. Happy‑melon 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, good job. Andrevan@ 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit late to the party (away on business) but in a nutshell:

• Outside of specific information that needed to remain private due to the foundations policies, everything should be discussed here.
• Our mandate is to interpret consensus in RfA's and RfB's, not to interpret consensus wrt much anything else. If, by policy, a user is eligible for reinstatement of the bit, then potential actions or interpretations by others, no matter how accurate is outside the scope of our mandate. If later transgressions are made, they will be handled through the proper channels.

I add my opinion that, per policy, the proper bureaucratic response here was to restore the bit. -- Avi (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As TravisTX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I requested removal of the bit last May, blanked my email address, and scrambled my password. I have decided - with some trepidation upon reading the above discussions - to request the bit to be given to this new account. I left in good standing with, as far as I am aware, no concerns. From off-wiki communication, Lar has indicated that he will confirm my identity. MBisanz also explained that the accounts' usernames could be swapped, but I prefer this new one, so I am not requesting that. Thank you. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirming that Lar forwarded me an email indicating these are the same people. Waiting for Lar to confirm directly here and also the standard 24 hour period, etc. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why is the talk page of the old account deleted? Talk pages should not be deleted except in extreme circunstances, and then by MfD not by speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I wondered that myself. Perhaps it was an RTV thing. –xeno^talk 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur, assuming there isn't a continuing reason for it, I would suggest undeleting under a protected redirect to the new page (it needs to be protected to stop bot spam). MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • (e/c) What xeno said, but please go ahead and undelete it along with the archives. I was going to do that or have it done, anyway. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      •  Done MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Any bot-op worth their salt will have their minions skip, or follow, redirects. –xeno^talk 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    • Well, I know Twinkle doesn't (not a bot, but a highly used tool). MBisanz ^talk 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

      Hm, indeed... Mentioned here: Wikipedia:TW/BUGS#TW-B-341 (acknowledged). –xeno^talk 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still puzzled as to why the talk page was deleted - even under RTV they should not normally be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:DELTALK isn't something that's too strictly enforced - especially for talk pages of admins, unfortunately. An admin even recently took issue with my restoring their old deleted history. –xeno^talk 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • DOesn't make it acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Never said it did... –xeno^talk 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• The archives are still deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • They aren't mandated to be available unless they were created with move-page archiving, but since DoRD said above he was planning to undelete them, I went ahead and did so. –xeno^talk 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll still like to know the reason for the original deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The reason given in the deletion log was "{{retired}}" –xeno^talk 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, I know that's what the log says, but that isn't a valid reason for deletion, and neither is speedy a valid process (I know you know that Xeno, just seems like some others don't). DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
          • According to WP:VANISH, "User talks per convention are almost never deleted" but it does happen and, like Xeno said, it isn't enforced with a tight regiment. Useight (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, I am aware of that - the question wasn't "Does this happen a lot?" but "Why did this happen in this case?" DuncanHill (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
              • And, of course, I couldn't tell you. You'd have to ask him directly. But I would hazard a guess that you would get a response along the lines of "I was retiring, so I deleted it" rather than "I was following policy XYZ." Useight (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At time I left, WP:VANISH was a bit more ambiguously worded than it currently is: "these are generally not deleted unless a user is exercising a permanent right to vanish. Since there is no way to know if this is the case, it's best to not delete user talk pages on request."[23] At that time, I was absolutely certain (ha!) that I was gone for good, so I asked another admin to delete it (my bit was gone by then). —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Identity

Emails can be spoofed of course but I think it's genuinely the same person... Per Matt's request, I confirm. I'd do this readmin if I were a 'crat (after the standard wait). ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The user had set a SHA-512 committed identity: ac0a8d5bda393eb4c57bc4cb1ba8e5d8522fb4ba752347a781dd8fbad50625658f177b28f468aaf9696c4403e624565ce19313f89b7a9b17b84ba99aa94dc19e . Perhaps they could provide the challenge phrase to a bureaucrat. –xeno^talk 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Or provide it right here.  Frank  |  talk  19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The challenge phrase could well be a phone number, old address, real name, etc. I don't think providing it publically is necessarily required, just to the bureaucrat who is going to re-tool them. –xeno^talk 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd saved the key somewhere, but spotlight can't find it, and my backups only go back to June. I'll scratch my head some more, though. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried everything "easy to remember" that I could think of, but no dice. I probably deleted the file with the key in it back in May. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone who had TravisTX's email address, perhaps they could send an email to it, and upon receiving a reply quoting that same confirming that "yep, I am DoRD" - that would ensure that the email Lar references above wasn't "spoofed". Since they can't remember their committed ID challenge phrase. –xeno^talk 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the message I sent to Lar yesterday was a reply to the message he sent me last May. ("Me" meaning "TravisTX" of course.) —DoRD (?) (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that does clear up any lingering concerns I had. –xeno^talk 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, your former account had a declared account at WikiHow, if you didn't hash that password, you could still log in there and edit your userpage there to confirm this new account is TravixTX. MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that website - I guess I got wrapped up over here, or ran out of how-to tips! —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, good, identity confirmed, don't see any controversy in the resignation, so intending to resysop tomorrow morning my time. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A good tip is to sign up with a gmail account and send your committed identity and your challenge string to yourself, it will be there for years after when you enter your hash into the search bar. Make sure you don't use the same password on wikipedia as your e-mail or you may defeat the purpose. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Resysopped MBisanz ^talk 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm getting here late and all, but for the record I can confirm that DoRD is in fact TravisTX by email (although it doesn't matter all that much at this point). Malinaccier (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#BAG_Nomination:_Tim1357 is due for closing by my watch and as the nominator, I can't close it. Could someone else take a look? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 08:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, looks fine. WJBscribe (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AN3#User:Christina Mendez reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: Warned). Supposedly Carlos5053 was renamed in October, 2008 to Christina Mendez, but the 3RR complaint is all confused because the contributions are shown as those of Carlos5053. Can a bureaucrat advise as to how to straighten this out? The user seems to have created his own redirects from User:Carlos5053 to User:Christina Mendez and so forth, but I assume he or she is not getting the orange bars when people give him warnings about the edit war. Any advice on how to complete the rename, or on who has to take further action, would be appreciated. A further wrinkle is that if the rename request is valid, this person is the subject of the Christina Mendez article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the rename worked fine [24] but that the user then continued to log in as Carlos503 (which was already a SUL account and continued to exist after the rename [25]). WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts are now blocked as they seem to have only one purpose: promoting Christina Mendez. Thus, they are violating multiple policies by working in concert on the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings -- people are still !voting on Everyking even though it's been expired for half an hour now. 1) Could someone previously uninvolved in Everyking-related conflict please close it; 2) Do you discount votes/comments made after the deadline? I'm presuming yes, but typically don't watch these things too closely ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the recommended closing time is not a strict deadline, and as such all votes until the actual closure are considered valid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It really shouldn't matter, its not as if their votes are suddenly worthless - it hasn't closed yet. Some people do believe RfXes should be locked as soon as they expire though. Prodego ^talk 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused as a crat, so I can't close, but I can say that seven days is the minimum and people can comment and have their comment taken into consideration until such time as the RFA is closed. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm recusing on this too due to the prior arbcom events. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I commend that Rlevse... I had actually thought about mentioning it to you that your role in ArbCOM might be seen as a COI here... so hats off for recognizing it youreself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 January 2010

Thanks Balloonman. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Recused too. But no doubt a crat who can close it will turn up soon. No harm if the discussion takes a little longer than 7 days. WJBscribe (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If none do, we might want to consider having an RfB to find one ;-) ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, since that would involve our waiting at least another week to close this RfA, let's hope it doesn't come to that. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But we would have known the first optional question... how would you close EK's RfA?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was left open all week it wouldn't have community support. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's not harmful to have this particular RFA running a little while longer. Unlike other discussions, where most is decided in the first few days, this one still enjoys a healthy level of activity on its final day, with more than 25 comments today alone. Maybe waiting for a truly uninvolved crat will prove to be a benefit for the discussion still ongoing? Regards SoWhy 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Recused. I nominated him last time. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I supported him; I'm not going to close it. Useight (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should perhaps check the previous RfAs and see if there are any crats who could close it. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Drat Useight. I was just about to ask "where's that new crat on the block?". --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, Avi, Biblio, Dweller, and EVula haven't voted... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, that's a neat trick... WJBscribe (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, lets leave EK hanging for a few more hours - what the hell, he's waited this long. At the very least a recusing 'crat should contact some neutral 'crat about the situation or would that be too much of a workload? hydnjo (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine every active bureaucrat watches this page. Useight (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe? hydnjo (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe supported EK's last RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I did? I'd have to go look and see. I was purposely not participating in this one, but I was at work when Avi closed it. I do agree with Avi that the consensus was to promote. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Geesh! hydnjo (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I just closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2 as successful. Since I'm the new 'crat on the block, could I get someone to verify that I did everything correctly? Thanks. Useight (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All looks fine. WJBscribe (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to uncheck the redundant flags, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Good call. Useight (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing as the !vote is somewhat under 80% and there is some controversy regarding it, may I be so bold as to suggest the Rfa be closed and a 'crat chat started regarding community consensus on this? I believe that was the case a few months back with Kww's Rfa. Thanks, Jusdafax 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I concur with Avi's close, for the reasons he mentioned, and was hovering on the edge of making the same decision myself. -- Pakaran 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• In my analysis and judgment of the opinions posted there was sufficient consensus to close this as successful, and so I did. A chat would be an unfair hardship to the candidate when it is not necessary and I do not believe the project wants for 'crats to increase their use of chats. I understand the decision may not be popular, but bureaucrats are supposed to make the best decisions they can understanding the community's will and the rfA process, and I believe that I did so. All of us bureaucrats have a responsibility to make the best decision we can, and as soon as we can, to be fair to the community and the candidate. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is almost always controversy and a !vote between 70% and 80% is within a single bureaucrat's discretion is it not? IMHO, I don't think we need more drama here. Well done Avi! hydnjo (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that it was a good close. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good close. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming from an opposer, good close. MLauba (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Second this, also as an opposer. Consensus was clear. Chick Bowen 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, and did not mean to second-guess by my early post here. Broadly, I feel that 'crat chats should be reserved for those cases (and probably not all those cases) where a reasonable 'crat might make either decision, which was not the case here. I regret not closing myself earlier; I felt it might attract contention to do so due to my relative inexperience at RfA. -- Pakaran 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to change my password, how I do? I've creates my page yesterday. Thank's--90.3.154.98 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Log into your account, to start with. Then click on "My preferences" in the top right hand corner of the screen. On the page that then appears, look for the "change password" link at the bottom of the first box headed "basic information". Click on it. You will then be asked to confirm your current password, and to select a new password. I hope that this assists, but if you have further problems, please contact the Help Desk. Bencherlite^Talk 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit dismayed that this user was given adminship tools back. The user in question under her username of User:Krimpet had previously vanished (deleted userspace, etc.), but in the meantime while claiming to be vanished, nevertheless persistently mocked other editors on Wikipedia Review and used or encouraged use of IPs that antagonized, baited, etc. at least me and on at least two occasions:

• She makes an allegation at Wikipedia Review, while mockingly referring to my old username instead of my current one, and then posts this, using an IP only to have DGG confirm that he has actually seen the degree in question.
• She makes a ludicrous assertion that a new account is A Nobody at Wikipedia Review and sure enough another editor starts Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive203#Possible_sockpuppet.3F in which ultimately User:Wizardman writes, “Katerenka's not A Nobody or any of his accounts.” and User:Risker adds, “Confirm that they are not the same person.”

She is thus 0/2 in bogus accusations against me on that attack site and in both cases these false claims resulted in IPs showing up on Wikipedia to attempt to out me in the first instance or cause problems for another user in the second. Such behavior is totally unbecoming of an administrator. I therefore strongly propose some kind of reconsideration or reconfirmation process in such an instance. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 11:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And a quick perusal of your block log shows that you've used sock puppets, abused your right to vanish, attempted to vote fix with sock puppets at AFDs and generally gamed the system. Now you're targetting a perceived enemy because that person blocked a pal of yours for 12 hours for violating an arbcom warning not to spam and canvass as he just did. So I strongly propose that you stop.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yours shows that you have been blocked for incivility (behavior that continues) and edit-warring, so I'm not sure what your point is, or are you saying that you endorse admins attacking others offsite and using or encouraging IPs to hound them onsite? By the way, why are you spamming BLP AfDs with copy and pastes, such as four in under a minute ([26], [27], [28], [29])? Please remember to take the time to read the articles and the discussions before commenting. Thank you. By the way, I am not an admin, nor am I requesting adminship. Nor did I vanish and come back being granted adminship. Nor have I ever commented on Wikipedia Review. Any more apples and oranges to compare? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• A Nobody, please stop the bickering. Knowing your past history with Fran Rogers, and your current disagreements surrounding the block of Ikip, you are not neutral. Bureaucrats have nothing to do here; Fran resigned voluntarily, and as such, was entitled to resysopping at her own request. If you have a serious case for desysopping the admin, ArbCom or WP:RFC/U is the way to go. Bringing it here serves no purpose. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Which of the two (Arb or RfC) would you recommend, because it is clearly unacceptable for an admin to mock editors offsite and use or encourage IPs to take that to be onsite as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Peter that this is outside the remit of the bureaucrats. MBisanz ^talk 12:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an admin holding the mop, you'll need to take it to a different forum, as we have no powers to remove the mop.

So perhaps you're here because you would like to address the resysopping. The resysop took place in October. Even if we had agreed that all subsequent resysops should wait 24 hours for discussion, the proposal that we should do that did not emerge until November (scroll down in that link). (And I'll point out that I don't think that we have agreed it)

So, in summary, we can do nothing to reverse the resysop and, as I have made clear, Andrevan's actions were entirely uncontroversial at the time. It's therefore apparent that there's nothing further to discuss here. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)