Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Just a note that Wikipedia_talk:BAG#BAG_Nomination:_Jake_Wartenberg appears to have been open seven days now and could use a crat to close it. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't do it as I !voted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would do it, but I do not know the templates for closing a RFBAG. bibliomaniac15 04:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use {{Rfap}} and modify it. MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, just copy the code from Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Tim1357. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I closed the nom as successful. Pretty clear-cut. Pakaran 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I just started an RfA. I have previously edited under a different name, but for real life safety reasons, I wish not to have the accounts publicly connected. Though there is already a bit of a confirmation of the standing of my previous account by Nakon who I verified my previous rollback status to, Jac16888 suggested I ask for a Bureaucrat to also verify the standings of my previous account.

If you would be willing to do this, please let me know how I should contact you to verify my previous account. Thanks. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 05:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This may not end well. There is frequently strong opposition to editors who re-appear under a different account name, claiming a history that is secret for privacy reasons. Viridae^Talk 05:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do so, feel free to email me the details. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Emailed. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 06:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Received. I will review the information and then post a note on your RfA. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From a discussion here, it's become clear that the Arbitration Committee will not vote on the merits of my adminship unless I'm currently an administrator. I think this rule is arbitrary and I don't particularly see the need for me to have my adminship at the moment in order for the Arbitration Committee to judge the merits of me being an administrator, but from my conversations with two individual Arbitrators, it's been made clear that this is actually necessary.

I resigned in order to demonstrate that I wasn't a threat with or without administrator tools and as an attempt to de-escalate the overall situation. I never retired or had any intention to. This wasn't an attempt to avoid scrutiny, merely an attempt to demonstrate good faith on my part that whatever perceived threat I posed as an admin was non-existent. In hindsight, resigning was a poor choice merely because of the surrounding drama it will cause likely on this noticeboard right now. I apologize for that, though at this point, I don't see any other way to get the Arbitration Committee to hold a straight vote, as multiple bureaucrats suggested they do.

I will not be using any of the tools for the duration of this case. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of your second RFA, where you resigned during an ongoing arbcase which you were part of, filed an RFA during said case, that RFA was unsuccessful. In my view this should wait til the current arb case is over. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Arbitration Committee would hold a straight vote on the merits of my adminship, I'd have no issue, and would be happy to, withdrawing this request. But it seems that the Arbitration Committee's view is that any resignation during any case filing automatically creates a controversy, regardless of circumstances. I don't think it's fair to me to stand behind a rule like this rather than holding a proper vote on the merits itself. Simply saying "you resigned during this hour on this day, sorry!" rather than holding a proper vote on the merits of the adminship just seems wrong to me. If the Arbitration Committee says I should no longer be an administrator, that's one thing. But standing behind an entirely procedural and technical maneuver (the PhilWelch precedent) is quite another. My opinion, of course, YMMV. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please propose the findings you would like to see the Arbitration Committee vote on using the workshop of the arbitration case. Requesting tool return at this point places an unfair burden upon the bureaucrats. Risker (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The usual reason for not giving someone back their tools is that they resigned under a cloud in order to avoid scrutiny. MZM is under a cloud, but there's no avoiding scrutiny during an open arbitration case. Perhaps you could explain more about what you mean by burdening the 'crats, Risker. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The status of his adminship is a core question of the case, which the committee will likely address in the final decision. For this reason, a straight-up vote of the kind requested here is forthcoming, but to do it now would be to prejudge the case. It is, however, entirely up to you bureaucrats whether you want to resysop him now or not. It might be a waste of time, or it might not be - Arbcom do need a *fixed* status, however, in order to adequately draft appropriate remedies and FoFs for the case, so a quick call one way or the other and then the outcome being maintained until the case is over would be appreciated Fritzpoll (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride, this is a misleading request. First, I'm not an active arbitrator on the case, and my idle speculation should not be the basis of an re-adminship request. Second, even taking my words as authoritative (which they are not), I say that ArbCom will almost certainly produce a binding decision on whether your bit can be restored without an RFA. You want BN to preempt ArbCom because you disagree with the reason that they might require you to pass RFA before your admin bit can be restored. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading here, CHL. I spoke both you and Roger, and both of you said the same thing. And, as expected, the Workshop doesn't include a straight vote on the merits of my adminship. It uses the same wishy-washy and ill-defined "controversial circumstances." Can you clarify which part you think is misleading here? Or can you clarify why a straight vote is so unforthcoming? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• MzM 1 - 'Crats 0. Clever use/abuse of this board McBride, but .... really ? Cummon. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For info, the draft proposed decision is now up at the workshop. It addresses both whether the editor's behaviour is compatible with adminship and contains the standard controversial circumstances stuff.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My reading of this case is that MZMcBride gave up the adminship rights under controversial circumstances or a "cloud," and based on the draft decision, the ArbCom is leaving it to the bureaucrats to determine whether this cloud constitutes sufficient reason not to re-grant adminship. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of thing that the "cloud" refers to and MZMcBride will have to go through some sort of re-confirmation, be it a full RfA or a consensus among the bureaucrats to invoke WP:IAR for the good of the project and in recognition of MZMcBride's commitment to the project. While I am not commenting on the case itself or the merit of MZMcBride as a contributor, I believe this is not a clear case of re-granting, and a discussion will have to occur as to the correct action to take, preferably after the ArbCom have completed their decision. Andrevan@ 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I would go further to state that IMHO his case would need the support of an RfA and frankly I do not see that happening.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the ArbCom case remains open, I actually have no great objection to the return of the tools. As I understand it, the rule about "controversial circumstances" exists to prevent someone resigning to avoid the consequences of misconduct. If someone resigns just prior to a case (which is accepted anyway) and requests restoration of the tools during that same case, then it's hard to see what this person has gained by his actions. MZM will be in exactly the same position as he was prior to his resignation - i.e. facing an ArbCom case where participants are calling for him to be desysopped. That said, restoring the tools so ArbCom can remove them in a few weeks seems rather pointless. WJBscribe (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Either way, we agree that we should wait until the case is over, do we not? Andrevan@ 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the Arbitration Committee refuses to vote on the merits of my adminship itself without me currently having the tools. As I said in the opening post, I don't understand the reason for this practice, but the Workshop page makes it clear that the Arbitration Committee has no intention of holding a proper vote on whether or not I should be an administrator unless I first get the tools back. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. There's a FoF about your judgment. It may not be drafted in drama-laden terms but it's there nevertheless.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger: Can you please explain, in clear terms, what your objection to a clear vote on the merits of my adminship is? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me you've already got one.

  Incidentally, and I've been meaning to ask this for some time, did you think the case would be declined or would be withdrawn if you resigned your adminship?  Roger Davies ^talk 05:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Not at all. It was clear from the beginning of the filing that it had nothing to do with my adminship. I urged rejection of the case because I realized that nothing (substantive or noteworthy) would come out of it (something that the Workshop is making more and more apparent). In total, it's coming down to two off-site posts on the Wikipedia Review. Of all the grave wiki-crimes I could have committed, making two posts on WR hardly seems on par with our normal standards for de-adminning users. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me that MZM is trying to play 'crats and arbs against each other. By having a 'crat return the tools MZM is able to say that at least one 'crat sees him in good standing and does not need a RFA and therefore his actions were okay and arbcom should not act. Additionally, since permanent desysop was raised during the case (I don't support but still), I think timing of when to have another RFA is at issue. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the sort of problem that would be avoided if we took people at their word when they resign, instead of the current practice of treating a resignation as a sort of "wikibreak from adminning". My thanks to MZM for POINTing out just how ridiculous the current "resysop without RfAd" actually is. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Duncan. People should still be allowed a voluntary vacation from the tools should they desire. In my opinion, the situation surrounding this resignation is nebulous and murky enough for me to be uncomfortable returning the tools at this point without going back and reading all of the archives in detail. -- Avi (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks like Newyorkbrad has made much of this moot by posting a clearer proposal. I'll just mark this as resolved. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Avi, I've got no problem at all with admins taking a vacation, so long as they call it a vacation. Calling a vacation a resignation is misleading (and cruel to the language to boot). DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It's a forced vacation, similar to people who ask that they get blocked to force themselves away from wikipedia for a while. If you have the tools, you will use them. For people who truly want to break and focus just on content, tool abeyance is perhaps the only way :) Furthermore, my understanding is that trust extends until it is removed. A user who has been trusted with the tools does not become untrustworthy by not using them or giving them back (rusty, maybe :) ) -- Avi (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A user is requesting RTV on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/srwm4. Can a bureaucrat please assist in that process? –MuZemike 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RTV is for users in good standing who are leaving permanently. As there is an ongoing CU case, we should await the CU results to ensure RTV is used as such. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, I stand corrected. Thanks, –MuZemike 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The resysop has been done and I think the message has been sent to Andre that his comments were not well received, there is no need to keep this open for people to pile on.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Balloonman. I just wanted to leave a comment here and if anyone wants to discuss further, please take it to my talk page. Although my comments may have seemed hostile, it is easy to read emotion where in fact none existed in the cue-less void of online text. I was aggravated though, which perhaps was correctly interpreted, and not because of MBisanz or Nihonjoe, but because of a general growing trend to bureaucratize and codify what seem to be to be spurious red tape processes. Wikipedia is closer to an adhocracy than any other named decision-making system. Our rule of WP:IAR is a key pillar of Wikipedia because we are focused on results and everything is handled on a case by case basis. While that means that MBisanz could easily turn the 24 hour wait period into a standard process by making comments like these and having it be a self-fulfilling prophecy, by the same token only comments like mine will prevent a bureaucratic consensus from forming around it. For the courtesy resysop process, no consensus or confirmation is required, contrary to Anonymous Dissident's comment. It is as automatic a task as a trivial rename provided no controversial circumstances exist regarding the desysopping. My comments were not intended as "discipline" nor do I think they were "rude," but they certainly were blunt; my intent is to nip this sort of thing in the bud, not to cause offense to any specific editors. I apologize to MBisanz and Nihonjoe for not mentioning that you are both doing a great job and this should not be perceived that I have a negative opinion of you or that I am assuming bad faith. But is very very important that Wikipedia's process maintain their agility and leanness, and this isn't always the case. The growing furor about the courtesy resysoppings is concerning to me and I want to ensure that this process is not disrupted; allowing admins on wikibreak to give up rights is an important security measure as well as a courtesy extended to our dedicated editors. Thank you, and I apologize again for any ruffled feathers. Andrevan@ 04:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we decide to always wait 24 hours, or do we respond to each request on its own merits, immediately approving requests if they are deemed uncontentious?

We need to make a decision on this, as the current situation is rather silly and I particularly hate to see Crats sniping at one another.

The first decision to make is abut how we should make this decision. Do we need a [n active] Crat consensus or a community consensus?

Personally, I think it's too detailed a point to necessitate wider community consensus. This is a technical issue of how we apply our procedures. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the main issue (as I'm not a crat), but I can't see any value in community consensus for such a minor bureaucratic process (the 24 hour wait - not resysoping in general). Consensus one way or the other between the active crats would seem sufficent. Pedro :  Chat  11:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm for the wait period. Consensus among active bureaucrats is sufficient for such a trivial decision. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-crat comment: I think that requiring multiple bureaucrats to confirm a request is a much better idea than waiting 24 hours. If 24 hours go by with no one commenting, that is nowhere near as effective as having multiple people check and resysopping in 2 hours. (X! · talk)  · @595  ·  13:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mere mortal's comment: I have no opinion on whether a waiting period is needed, but a decision either way is definitely preferable to the current situation, where every resysop seems to turn into a discussion on whether to wait or not. If/when you come to a decision, I think it would be a good idea to document it somewhere so that people who haven't been following the discussion know what to expect. Jafeluv (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As a 'crat that doesn't particularly care anymore, I think it's plenty sufficient if we can just get three 'crats to look at the situation: the first to weigh in on whether it's fine or not, a second to confirm, and a third to perform the resysopping. I'm not a fan of simply waiting 24 hours; as X! points out, it's not a guarantee that it'll be effective. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, I think requiring the assent of three bureaucrats for any resysopping is a bad idea. Just saying. Nathan ^T 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? Not hounding you, I'm just not seeing the "bad idea"ness of it and am open to changing my stance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I just don't see how it's necessary - it seems sort of needlessly bureaucratic (ha ha). Plus, it assumes a level of bureaucrat activity that would allow for timely management of requests with this kind of requirement. We want people to feel comfortable relinquishing sysop during periods of inactivity - as the process for resysopping becomes more involved and potentially contentious, fewer people will be willing to risk it. It's already become a mini-RfA here in some ways - 'crats and non-crats weighing in with their approval or objections, sometimes with some animosity. That's a negative development in my mind, and we shouldn't be encouraging it. Nathan ^T 15:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I am against both any mandated waiting period or mandated multiple bureaucrat response. While both are good ideas and should be within the toolbox for more difficult cases, they are overkill if necessarily implemented in all cases. This is in accord with my understanding of policy that a sysop who voluntarily relinquishes the tools without "a cloud" is still a sysop; just one who has set the toolbox down for a while. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Andrevan@ 04:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: (ec) While I don't think waiting 24 hours is a bad thing (it's really not all that long a period of time, all things considered), if a few 'crats have reviewed the situation and found nothing which would prevent resysopping, I don't have a problem with the bit being twiddled fairly quickly. I think it is a good idea for multiple 'crats to review a situation in case one finds something the others don't, and I don't see a problem with requiring 2-3 (at the least) 'crats to have reviewed the situation before a decision is made. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm against requiring 24 hours for every case. I think that long is overkill in most instances. If we have some links to back up the fact that the desysopping was not under a cloud, and if a few hours have gone by and nobody has shown up to say, "Hey, you're misrepresenting the situation, there was actually ArbCom case XYZ or RFC such and such" then we're probably good to go in nearly every request. There are a lot of excellent contributors that watch this page, I don't think much is going to sneak past everybody. If a minimum wait time was to be set up, I'd go for something more along the lines of 6 hours. Useight (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Useeight... I think the 24 hour guideline is a fine guideline, but should not be held to religiously. I think it is more appropriate when the 'crats are not familair with the specifics of the desysop or with the person who resigned the bit. Let's use a recent example---WJBSCRIBE. He retired and relinquished his bit and 'crathood. Was there any issue surrounding his retirement? Were all of the 'crats familiar with him and the his status when he left? It would have been mere politics to wait 24 hours. At the same time, I don't expect the 'crats to know what is going on with every admin. When Joe_anonymous resigns his bit a year ago and pops up today, the 'crats may or may not know who he was or under what circumstances he resigned. I think the 24 hour period is best served when A) the 'crats are not personally familiar with the admin and his/her standing when they stepped down and B) when the admin in question is active in areas that can get heated/controversial.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(Nonentity note:) I don't see 24 hrs as a big deal. If the project has survived for a while without that particular admin, it'll probably be around 24 hours later as well :) On the other hand, a little time gives people time to chime in and 'hidden' issues to surface. The only downside is that, the way the world works, once it is 24 hrs we'll be arguing about 48 hrs, then one week, .... etc! I like the idea of crats chiming in with a 'no issues', reassures the community that this isn't some sort of secret cabal thing at work. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Seems relatively simple to find a compromise here - if two or more crats say "okeydokey" before 24 hours then the flag is restored. If not, then we wait for the skeletons to pour out of the cupboard for 24 hours. No skeletons, flag restored. 24 hours isn't a long time in the Wikiworld... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've thought about this some, and I feel it's a good idea to err on the side of making sure that "bad" resysoppings don't happen at risk of a few being held up. That said, I hope that the existence of a discussion/hold here is never used against a user, since all it would mean is "we're not sure" (and in the majority of cases, a user requesting resysopping is indeed just a "sysop without tools"). If there is a really unclear case, then it might be appropriate to drop an email to the arbitrators. I have a certain concern that if a very short hold becomes the default, a user who was under a cloud might request resysopping in the middle of the night (so I think something like a 3-6 hour minimum might not be a bad idea). I also think that there's not necessarily a need for a formal policy, since there will always be cases in which it's very clear that no cloud exists. I'd say that uncongeniality between crats over interpretation of the ideal practice is my single biggest issue with all of this. I will also say that I was hesitant to comment since my judgement/experience has been questioned in the not overly distant past. -- Pakaran 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with a "formal consensus" on this issue is that I don't think any action will realistically be taken against crats who don't follow it. I can't see an RfC against a bureaucrat for restoring tools "too soon" in uncontroversial cases getting very far.
That said, I think that bureaucrats who choose to restore the tools without waiting for comments from the community about controversy they may have overlooked, or input from other bureaucrats, do so at their own risk. Should the decision to do so prove to be in error, I don't think a bureaucrat should be surprised if the community's confidence in them is shaken and would, I think, need to consider their position. WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a valid point, but one that may be extended to nearly all cases. Any action on Wikipedia is done at one's own risk, and no positions may be held forever if community trust is lost. Andrevan@ 04:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Few decision made without discussion are irreversible without arbcom input. Viridae^Talk 11:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• I think a three-crat sign-off is better than a 24-hour wait period (simply because the latter is likely to cause more needless waiting than the former). I also think I agree with WJBscribe, since any decision here is not going to be enforceable. If a bureaucrat wants to promote before others have stated their agreement, they're free to do that. I wouldn't advise it, though: There's no rush, having others confirm a request can serve to prevent unnecessary debate, and the requestor isn't likely to have to wait long for three bureaucrats to turn up anyway. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

MBisanz summary

• If I'm reading correctly its that we should wait long enough to get another crat's input but that any crat can decide on his own to resysop (and bears the burden of being wrong). I suppose I can follow that model. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to support this. If other active Crats could note their stance, it would be useful to establish a consensus and hopefully avoid friction in the future. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the same as what we do now? Any 'crat can decide on their own recognizance to make a decision, and every judgment we make is always open for the community to comment upon. Further, the more 'crats agree to a particular issue, the less the onus devolves on any one of them. Thus, what exactly is intended to be different from current practice? -- Avi (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Establishing that we do or don't have a formal "wait 24 hours" process will help prevent some unnecessary sniping. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the key is the instant resysoppings... there was a case a few weeks (months) ago where somebody asked for the tools back and they were granted 18 minutes after the request. After the tools were granted, somebody raised a concern about the nature of the person's departure and the 'crat admitted to not being aware of the situation. It ended up not being an issue, but the concern was that the insta-sysop didn't allow for others more familiar with the situation to raise the flag.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to support that we don't, at our own risk -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Useight (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Pakaran 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I assume we agree on this issue, I've created this provision in our procedures listed on WP:CRAT. Please edit and revise without mercy. bibliomaniac15 05:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done so in order to better reflect the consensus I see here. Does it look okay? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost. I think it's missing the part about a Crat being able to take a unilateral decision. I don't think the caveat of "on your head be it" is needed, as (as has been mentioned) that's always implicit for wikipedia actions, whether a revert, a block or a resysop. --Dweller (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed slightly: now it's "strongly recommended". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good distillation, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 05:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the top of the page, we have several RFAs that are prime candidates for snow or NOTNOW closes. In the interest of avoiding edit warring on the subject, could some crats go ahead and shut them down? --Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, one of those I suspect you have in mind is an RFA on which I asked a rather pointed question, and feel emotionally involved. Second of all, in general, I believe there is a relatively high bar based on the last discussion before forcible early closure is in order. Again not commenting on specific present cases, perhaps doing a normal SNOW close and seeing how candidates react might be a good first step? It resolves the majority of these situations. -- Pakaran 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To make it easier to close requests, I've been WP:BOLD and created {{rfbagp}}, {{rfbagf}} and {{rfbagb}}. They're based heavily on the matching RFA templates and should [1] [2] work the same. Feel free to revise them, speedy them, document them somewhere (like WP:CRAT), tell me why this is a stupid idea, etc. -- Pakaran 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I added them to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Instructions. Useight (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work, both of you. --Dweller (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll pile on with a commendation for boldness. bibliomaniac15 07:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has done this before. Good use of WP:BOLD, Pakaran. (X! · talk)  · @661  ·  14:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Following two discussions on the subject, there is community support for bureaucrats to have the technical ability to remove admin and bureaucrat bits, in the situations where this is currently handled by the Stewards. There are a number of issues which need to be considered in light of this, and all (crats especially) are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Happy‑melon 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I, and I guess some other Crats, have been hanging off getting involved until consensus emerged. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Three of the servers seem to be down right now.

I recall discussing in the past the idea of posting a big message on the CHU pages to say we can't change names right now. Does anyone remember the result of it? --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I participated in that discussion, but why not leave it and let the requests wait a little longer? It's not like we promise instantaneous service. Andrevan@ 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a crat should at least add comments on pages like WP:CHU/SUL that are affected by this so people don't wonder why their requests are going unanswered for such a long time. Regards SoWhy 09:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the recent discussions on ANI (under the section of the block of Unitanode), and the kerfuffle over the deletion of my talk page on my talk page history. Right now I'm probably not in the right frame to administer anything effectively and need a break. I won't go into the details of the RL issues but suffice it to say that the last 3 weeks have been exceedingly stressful and disruptive and this is a time in my life that really needs to be over sooner rather the later. The upshot is that I am considering handing in my bit until I am feeling more settled and less likely to make poor decisions due to external factors. I would like to know before I make a decision whether my handing in my bit now will be considered doing so under controversial circumstances and whether any of the current 'crats are likely to agree to return the tools to me when I feel able to engage properly with admin activities. (This is a question for the crats not the peanut gallery by the way) Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your disdain for the peanut gallery notwithstanding,^[1] I don't think the current events (being an isolated incident, I presume?) would have lead to your desysopping. So, a few scattered clouds, but I think resysopping on your return would be uncontroversial. Take your break. –xeno^talk 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this monkey sitting on the peanut gallery doesn't believe you were under a direct threat of desysopping either and while some have questioned the propriety of the admin actions on your talk page, nobody has even hinted at considering taking this further, so from my 2 cents, you may have made choices under stressful conditions that you might have avoided in better circumstances but I don't see a cloud.

GL with the RL stuff, hope to see you back under the best conditions soon. MLauba (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely not a "cloudy" desysopping in my view (as a non-bureaucrat). Sure, you made a block that the part of the community disagreed with. It happens. You would not have been desysopped over it. Plus, we shouldn't encourage people to keep ahold of their sysop tools during a time they don't want to just so that they can ensure that they will be able to get it back when they are up to it. NW (Talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from the peanut gallery. I was only concerned about the protection of his talk page. I did in fact warn him that this might lead to me requesting him be desysopped, but he unprotected and undeleted so there was no chance this was going to happen. For the record, I didn't find any pleasure in threatening to go to ArbCom. As I was largely the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, it causes me no little discomfort and unease that I was cause of this issue by undoing his block. The block, incidentally, I feel was poorly judged but in no way was this an issue that would have caused him to be desysopped. If it was, then I should also be desysopped for unblocking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. if he does hand in the bit, then I would like to also make it clear that Spartaz is not resigning under a cloud in any way. I hope he comes back to adminship one day. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the cloud, but if you're concerned, you could always keep the bit. Andrevan@ 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

One comment as someone recently resysopped: The only cloud I can see is the deletion of your talkpage as it was something that was questioned in my case. Otherwise, it looks like clear weather to me. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "under a cloud" as used in this context should be deprecated; it has unhelpful overtones and was specifically replaced in the original 2006 Arbitration Committee decision that led to the current policy, at my suggestion on the workshop. The relevant principle is that one cannot resign as an administrator (or other functionary) for the purpose or with the effect of evading scrutiny of one's actions that could have led to sanctions, and then come back and pick up as if nothing had happened once the spotlight has worn off. On Wikipedia, as elsewhere, guidelines and policies should not be divorced from their contexts, and I don't think it was ever the intent to apply "new RfA required" when an administrator has chosen to step away on the basis of burnout, or even in the face of criticism, where the situation is an isolated incident and nothing like sanctions was being proposed. (Commenting on general principles, not this specific user.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABureaucrats&action=historysubmit&diff=345476545&oldid=344672658. -- Avi (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with NYB, here. And Spartaz -- though he made a few large errors (bad block, talkpage deletion, talkpage redeletion, talkpage protection) -- I'm satisfied with his explanation, and have accepted his apology at my talkpage. Thus, I see no reason to conclude that he resigned "for the purpose or with the effect of evading scrutiny of [his] actions." Scottaka UnitAnode 22:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I do very much appreciate the comments here but I'm disappointed that only one 'crat has chosen to comment directly on this case and that the issue is therefore left hanging. I'm sure we would all prefer if I could continue to edit with the Spartaz account and I would be less tempted to do stuff I should recuse from until I'm feeling more stable if I didn't have any admin buttons staring at me when I edit. Providing the reassurance I am looking for seems a small step and it's disappointing that we havn't reached that point. Ho Hum. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything really for the purpose or with the effect of evading scrutiny of one's actions (or "cloudy" for short) here in a brief looksee. That doesn't mean something won't come to light, but (as of this time) I see nothing which would prevent a return of the tools after a break. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And noting that there ain't many of us Crats active, Spartaz, and this one's unwell. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope you get better soon... JonnyRubber (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: FWIW, my thoughts on the issue should be apparent from the the edit I made to WP:CRAT :) -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

[3] I have now requested the removal of my bit at meta. Thanks for the comments and the assurances. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC went live today. To repeat what I have stated here previously: 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, and I hope you will take a stand on the issue. For what it is worth, I personally do not see your !vote or expressed opinions as a conflict of interest. I believe the community needs to know your thoughts.

I also urge a discussion regarding this RfC here, on this page. I have felt from the start of the current process that it is obvious that if a number of you are against this proposal, that it should obviously be substantially revised, or just dropped. Thanks, Jusdafax 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I also welcome your comments, and I agree that there is no COI in commenting—whether you support or oppose it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented, and tried to make clear the difference between my thoughts as an editor and my thoughts as a bureaucrat. -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see a number of Crats have responded now, in various ways. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. When I first got into bot programming, I separated each major task into an individual account; EarwigBot II was used to search for copyvios, EarwigBot III was used to generate statistics for AFC, et cetera. I chose to do this because I thought it would be easier to control each bot separately, and I wouldn't have to worry about blocks affecting all tasks. I have run four separate bot accounts for some time now, and it has worked well enough until recently. I now realize that it would be much easier, from a bot operator's standpoint, to consolidate all of my bot tasks into one account, User:EarwigBot, and leave my other bot accounts unused. Normally this could be done without bureaucrat intervention, but while my existing bot accounts are flagged, User:EarwigBot is not. I'd appreciate it if a 'crat could flag this user. Furthermore, if my other four bot accounts are going to be unused (EarwigBot I, EarwigBot II, EarwigBot III, and EarwigBot V), they should be deflagged. I have disabled all tasks in the meantime. Sorry for any trouble this causes. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — The Earwig ^(talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I may be posting in the wrong spot.

If I am having trouble with a sys admin in another language, and I am seeking some advice from someone here, where should I post?

Sorry for the trouble. Varlaam (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a better place to post, could I be directed there?

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to answer the question, as it's rather vague. Are you having difficulty communicating on this wikipedia with an admin who doesn't seem to speak good English? If the problem is communicating with an admin on a different wikipedia, I suggest you find an admin there who does speak good English. User pages are a good place to look - a lot of people have language "Babel boxes". --Dweller (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Meta's Requests for comment may be of use. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bureaucrats, I just approved DYKUpdateBot to update the DYKs on the main page, aswell as delete the temporary files that are associated with them. To do so, the bot needs both a sysop and a bot flag. Please and thank you :) Tim1357 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given it the bot flag; as for the sysop flag, don't we require an RfA for that? -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I went ahead and gave it the sysop flag as well per WP:ADMINBOT. Avi, are you ok with that? MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ADMINBOT, "The bureaucrat who responds to the flag request acts as a final arbiter of the process and will ensure that an adequate level of community consensus (including publicity of approval discussion) underlies the approval." Was that done? Since we cannot remove the admin flag now, I didn't flip it before I could judge whether or not the BRFA discussion was sufficient. Do you think it was, MB? -- Avi (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering it duplicated a task of another admin bot that has been running for over a year with the admin flag and is run by an admin and the BFRA was open for a reasonable period of time, I think it was sufficient. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well and good then :) Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to ask for another admin-bot but could one of you fine bureaucrats take a look at Requests_for_approval/7SeriesBOT? Tim1357 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. I'd welcome another pair of eyes, as the conversation is a little complex. --Dweller (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 already twiddled the bits, as seen here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I know some crats don't like it if I raise something like this here, but I think WP:CHU/SUL could do with some crat attention. Regards SoWhy 11:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you're really saying is that we need more 'crats, right? ;) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No way, I would never say that!!! ;-) Regards SoWhy 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually I'm all over CHU, but I've been using my old, emergency, Linux-based laptop while my desktop is in disrepair. I'll be back up to full speed within a week, I hope. Useight (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I missed the SUL part. I'm not there too often. I'll take some reading lessons. Useight (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to an issue of rank incompetence I just accidently nuked the talk page of this board.... but I've put it back again. It's just as tidy as it used to be, and I've added another coat of polish by way of an apology. Pedro :  Chat  20:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thou art noobish. –xeno^talk 20:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Ironically, this belongs at WT:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

(edit conflict) Well, "rank" is the best sort of incompetence for deleting a page regarding bureaucrats... ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, it looks so new and shiny. Useight (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the header and the archivebox. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:EyeEightDestroyerBot was recently approved and flagged as a bot; it's functionality also requires the admin bit (please add). It's operator, User:X! has the bit. Details at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EyeEightDestroyerBot. Thanks. Josh Parris 14:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. DYKadminBot was recently replaced by a new and enhanced DYKupdateBot, which does the same tasks but more efficiently. This was partly in response to the bot's sudden breakage in February; but given its tendency to suddenly jump back into action, I blocked it.

However, it still retains its flags (bot and sysop). The bot flag can easily be removed, but can BAG members, or bureaucrats, request desysopping of bots at meta? Or is that handled through a different venue? Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we could go to m:SRP if the bot's op is inactive or otherwise doesn't object to it. MBisanz ^talk 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to me making such a request at m:SRP? MBisanz ^talk 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot-op inactive since November. I have removed the bot flag. Useight (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Support removal of bot's sysop flag too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support removal of admin flag, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Posted on SRP citing this discussion; see for more. NW (Talk) 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I put it on hold so he wouldn't be too stressed out that nobody had seen its time expire. However, as I've only been a bureaucrat for a short time, I didn't want to jump in and close this RFB unilaterally. If someone else wants to close it, that's fine with me, or if a 'crat chat is opened, I'm good with that, too. I'd be glad to voice my interpretation of the RFB should one be opened. Useight (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfB shouldn't be closed if the result hasn't been determined. The ending time is a recommendation, not a strict deadline. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly a pass, and that comes from someone who opposed. A bit more conviction please Useight - ironically why I opposed X!'s request. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I opposed, but it looks like a pass to me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pedro/Scott, there is no need not to close this RfB as a pass. I don't see this RfB as being close---the opposers are for the most part praising X! Most of them are opposing on grounds that there are enough 'rats already, not that there is a reason not to promote X!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those rats can be a pain sometimes... ;-) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO ooops didn't mean anything by 'rats... ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree (as an opposer) that this is a clear pass, and should be closed as such. Thanks! Aiken ♫ 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the rat passed...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have closed it as successful and that's what I would have voiced in a 'crat chat. Please excuse me for being a little hesitant on closing my first RFB; thanks, Pedro, for the prodding. Useight (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect your desire to be cautious Useight, and no fault in that of course, but I do think 'crats need to have a certain level of conviction. Good close. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Useight, no harm done. I was unavailable until an hour after it was supposed to be closed, so I hopped on the computer at the exact moment the "on hold" changed to "successful". I do respect your desire to take your time to minimize mistakes when closing your first RfB, especially one that was close to the bottom of the passing range. Well done! (and I'm not just saying that because it was my RfB. :) ) (X! · talk)  · @115  ·  01:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Was stuck in all-day meetings (Wiki still doesn't pay my mortgage), sorry, and 'gratz X! -- Avi (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Knock, knock, are there any crats around? The Rami R RfA is 10 hours overdue and needs closing. Nsk92 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No need, I withdrew myself. Rami R 20:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Was in the discretionary range? Oh well, you're better off without the tools anyway! =) –xeno^talk 21:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It was in the low end of the range, and with the tide against me, it felt like a decision to promote would be "courageous" or at least controversial ;) Rami R 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago, I proposed that we adopt a new format for WP:CHU and subpages. Things have moved forward, and I've put together a draft "landing page". You're invited to discuss the proposal here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. The impenetrable and lengthy instructions have always been a bugbear for me. Having done some extended tinkering round the edges in the past, I'm delighted you've taken this on in a belt and braces manner. Further comment etc will be there. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoever closes this discussion should make note of my note in the General comments section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems like the SUL util tool has been going down a lot lately, I've created a tool with almost similar funationality at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/slow_sulutil/ . The main difference is that it does not use the database at all, so even if the SUL util tool is broken, my tool will be working (unless the Toolserver web server is down). Usage is like this: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/slow_sulutil/?name=X! . (X! · talk)  · @330  ·  06:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. It seems a lot of things on the toolserver aren't working right now. I've tried some other tools and they choke on the requests. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There was recently some maintenance done on the toolservers db's (JIRA Ticket), so there maybe issues while some DNS magic happens and if people pointed to the db in a certain way (such as pointing to the server name and not a server db alias), It may break the tool(/s) relaying on the specific databases. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 08:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kirachinmoku 2, They have stated on my talk page that they would like to withdraw. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Following from the two discussions on giving bureaucrats the technical ability to remove admin and bureaucrat flags, in February 2009 and then January 2010, and the more recent discussion on implementation; a clear conclusion is that a concrete policy governing bureaucrats' use of this tool is desired. Accordingly, there is now a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators#Bureaucrat removal, which mandates bureaucrats to remove rights only in the uncontroversial instances. Please come and share any thoughts on the proposal at the associated discussion. Happy‑melon 12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Concern withdrawn by original poster. –xenotalk 15:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, im not sure if anyone else has complained yet, but i have noticed that there is a slow process going on at WP:USURP, ive seen request being made and they were answered seven days later. I expect a bureaucrat to respond to a request within 24 hours. Also note that im not coming here to force you to do your jobs, its just that i want to give a piece of advice. Thank You, Dwayne Flanders was here! talk 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC) It's not a bug. It's a feature. You are supposed to wait for 7 days on an usurpation request to allow that original account owner to respond. Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you Tim, i had no idea! Dwayne Flanders was here! talk 23:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC) There are quite a few requests out though. I'll see what I can do. bibliomaniac15 04:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "I expect a bureaucrat to respond to a request within 24 hours." Really? What did your last slave die of? WJBscribe (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Excuse me? Im not calling you guys my slaves, and you were no help and you were very unprofessional. If it was a joke you could have added LOL at the end so id know. And i find Tim Song's comment more helpful & professional, maybe you can try following his footsteps. Dwayne Flanders was here! talk 23:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC) You should apply the same logic to your request. Coming here and making demands ("I expect a bureaucrat to respond to a request within 24 hours.") is not the way to bring attention to a perceived problem. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Please read because i stated Also note that im not coming here to force you to do your jobs, its just that i want to give a piece of advice so im not giving demands Dwayne Flanders was here! talk 11:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Torpor? O Fenian (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC) You'll notice that we're all volunteers. We'll get to the backlogged requests as soon as possible. Useight (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please check the username usurpations? (Perhaps a sign that we need more bureaucrats?) --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything updated now. I'll be more helpful when I get my computer back up and running again. The insurance check is "in the mail." Useight (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I just got notified that User:JzG is requesting readminship on Meta (it was declined). I've checked the request for deadminship, his talk page archives, and as much as I can tell, there was no drama surrounding the removal of the bits. His meta account is joined to this account via SUL, so this could probably be considered a request for adminship here. In keeping with the new idea of letting other crats comment, I'm putting it out here. (X! · talk)  · @993  ·  22:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note for those not familiar with the steward-global relationship: It was declined there because stewards are not allowed to resysop users when local bureaucrats are available to do them, not because the stewards thought there was some controversy. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• If JzG is requesting restoration of his adminship, I know of no impediment to granting the request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone link to the bit removal request/pertinent threads? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• • http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=prev&oldid=1913146 (X! · talk)  · @012  ·  23:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • The request for removal is here. Aiken ♫ 23:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Whoops, thank you. :) (X! · talk)  · @018  ·  23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of (nor can I find) any issues which would prevent this. I would prefer others do more checking, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's routine. Bit resigned in uncontroversial circumstances (request) before a wikibreak due to pressure of work. Some recent discussions with various folks have left me needing to trawl through some deleted content and revisions, it looks like I might be wanted back at OTRS. Guy (Help!) 07:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't casting an aspersions. I just wasn't where I could look into it more to verify everything. I've done that now and restored the bit.  Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, absolutely fine by me and thanks for doing the needful. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a matter of record, I have to note that there *was* an arbitration case involving JzG pending at the period of his requesting the bit removal, which I am sure Newyorkbrad can confirm, having been an arbitrator in that case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Proposed decision has the relevant arbitrator reasonings and conclusions. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Since there was never any prospect of the case taking away Guy's bit that wasn't relevant as Brad confirmed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, today i got my usurp request declined because User:UninvitedCompany said The target has made contributions here, and the user name is in use on several other wikis. However i have went through the archives and i have seen several exceptions for target usernames that is similar to mines. Furthermore, i have tried to contact the account holder but there is no e-mail address associated with this account, i am trying my best the scan all through the internet to find the account holder. Also the contributions are all old. I think this username should be given to someone who actually wants to contribute Wikipedia and not abandon the name. Thank you, Best Regards ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And what of the second reason for the decline, that the username is in use on several other wikis? Allowing you to take over this name and potentially navigate into a better claim over the SUL than the other-project-Dwayne's would not be appropriate. (Though I do note that there aren't that many [4] - and the one with the best claim - 42 edits - hasn't edited since August 2008) –xeno^talk 20:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Xeno, that's exactly what im talking about, those edits are old. The account holder abandoned the account. ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwayne, could you provide some diffs to show some of these examples? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there is a way to erase the edits but it's only used for serious purposes. If you hate your current username so much, then try DwayneF or MyNameIsDwayne – not everyone can bend over backwards to accommodate your desires. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is one example:> ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? (And please don't bold your text or use "big" tags, we can all read perfectly well without.) ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwayne had provided an example, but realised that it was not relevant, and so removed it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the usurpation. Two edits, from five years ago, and a few SUL accounts. Most of the accounts have 2 or fewer edits and most haven't edited in three years. I'd be fine with it. Useight (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the same thing im trying to say. ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I just said in IRC, Dwayne, DWAYNE (talk · contribs) has no edits (deleted or otherwise) on enwiki, and no accounts on any other WMF project. If you want to just use your first name, then that would work - just make your signature read "Dwayne" instead of "DWAYNE". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it looks kind of strange and annoying at the same time with all capital letters, lets just see how other crats respond to this usurpation. ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! ^talk 02:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Some diffs to show the precedent has been set would be useful, Dwayne. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing this request, I think it should have been allowed. While the username is found on a few other language wikis, no SUL account exists and Dwayne Flanders has many times more edits than the next highest person using that username (1756 vs. 42). I see no reason to not allow this username to be usurped. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and do it, I have no objection. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that got done. I was going to do it, but I've had limited PC access as of late. Thanks, Joe. Useight (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I thank all of you for your compliance! Dwayne was here! ^talk 04:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Compliance had nothing to do with it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that it is time to sunset the SUL-specific page and procedures for SUL requests. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Changing username. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pursuant to the discussion, I have closed WP:CHU/SUL to new requests and directed people to WP:CHU and WP:USURP instead. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A user who has twice previously been renamed has asked to be renamed again (to a name used formerly). I have declined the request, but discussion continues at WT:USURP. I think more voices in the conversation would be helpful. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raaggio

Raaggio wants to have the RfA reopened. I do not think this would be productive as there is absolutely no chance this RfA will close as successful. I also don't think there will be anything new in the way of useful advice for this candidate. Please come offer your opinions here. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reopening would not go well. The candidate would better spend his time learning from the comments already received and returning to RFA some months from now. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please post your comments over on my talk page so as to keep all the comments together. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats (unlike checkusers and oversighters) are not entrusted to handle private information (and not identified to the WMF) and this is a responsibility we should not impose on them. I think the notice needs to be reworded, as it may bring a user to forward private information to bureaucrats. In the rare cases were an account needs to be speedily renamed for privacy issue, can't it be handled by 'functionaries' ? there a few bureaucrats who are also CU or OS. At least we should inform readers of this, an emailnotice can be used in addition. Cenarium (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We handle right-to-vanish cases, which is what I consider the "privacy issue" bit to cover. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with EVula; and in addition 'crats are, on occasion, asked to verify certain information in respect of RFA's (c.f. this RFA [5]). I'm afraid I don't think there is any useful outcome of this idea as most users who even know what a bureaucrat is have a goodish grasp of their remit. As an aside admins (and therefore all crats) have access to vast reams of private information through the ability to review deleted edits (only the really, really dodgy stuff gets to oversight). Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it needs to read rather "if you wish to vanish, please use (...)". 'Alert them of a privacy issue or an emergency' doesn't obviously relate to RTV, which users may not be aware of, and can mean plenty of different things to readers. Pedro, in the link you provide, the user knowingly gave the information to a bureaucrat but was aware of all this, and the user could have provided the information to a functionary but it was his/her informed choice. But to users who are not familiar with the relevant positions on Wikipedia, it could mean to them that bureaucrats are people who handle privacy issues and emergency matters, which is certainly not the case. Yes there are different 'levels' of privacy and admins are often confronted to private information but the point should be made to readers that so-called functionaries are the ones who deal with privacy issues. As an aside, it came to my attention at Wikipedia:RTV#Vanishing_from_Wikipedia. Cenarium (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, if an editor has got to the point of even knowing what the term bureaucrat means on WP (let alone CU/OS) then I'd be very suprised if they didn't know well enough the remit of that role, or at least how to find out more (hence the point of that link). This just seems a bit WP:CREEPy to me, but I'm not fussed to be honest. Just giving my usual valueless 2p Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for the user to know what the bureaucrat function is to land here or at WP:RTV; newbies frequently ask how they can leave/delete their account on the help desk for example; and if a user points them to WP:RTV or WP:BN then they'll see this big notice and think that bureaucrats deal with privacy issues and emergencies... Cenarium (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's an RTV privacy issue or emergencies, bureaucrats do deal with it. If it's something else, we will refer them to the correct location. This is a solution in search of a problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say that, I am just asking that the notice be clarified to avoid misunderstandings and possibly mention RTV, it seems uncontroversial to me. If a user emails bureaucrats asking them to remove private information, the harm will be done, even if responded that this is handled by oversighters, it'll expose bureaucrats to private information and delay their suppression. By the way there's a warning at AN and ANI on this, this is not unusual to be proactive for those matters. Thus I also suggest that we use an emailnotice, which could read "You can request that bureaucrats perform a rename as part of right to vanish. For requesting permanent removal of private information, email oversight." Cenarium (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If I could think of any misunderstandings that this would clear up, I'd probably be more willing to support changing it. I honestly don't see a problem, and you haven't really presented any reasonable examples. Sorry. I don't recall ever seeing any oversight reports to the 'crat mailing list. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see [6] there is already agreement that there is no bar to my resuming the tools when I'm ready. I need to be able to see some deleted articles at DRV and I'm feeling much better so I'm ready to go. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thanks Guys. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I support this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW his anti-policy deletion and protection of his own talk page, and rude response to notification of a deletion review suggest to me that he is unsuited to be an admin. He has no greater need to see delete articles than any other editor at DRV. DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to back up your claims? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• See [7] for the logs shewing anti-policy deletion and protection. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • While I wasn't impressed with the deletion or wheel-warring, I don't think this would have really lead to a desysopping at arbcom though. Especially given that he eventually self-reverted. –xeno^talk 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) See [8] for insult directed at admins who objected. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding re-bitting, the question is not whether the admin was in harmony with the universe at the time they gave up the bit, but whether they gave up the bit in order to avoid or terminate proceedings with the realistic possibility of de-bitting. Based on the facts presented, there was not an active or proposed RFC/RFAR/etc that had the realistic likelihood of Spartaz being de-bitted, hence the re-bitting. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I just have the terribly unfashionable attitude that people who abuse admin tools while pretending to retire shouldn't be handed them back on a plate without reference to the community. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please read WP:CRAT and then realise that you're in the wrong venue Duncan. It's not complex. It is not within the remit of bureaucrats to personally decide if admin tools have been abused. They follow the will of the community as evidenced by RFC/U's - ANI reports - ARBCOM etc. If there are no community / ARMCOM /Jimbo reasons not to re-grant then they re-grant. That's the end of it. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not allowed to judge if admin abuse occurred though. I can only judge if the person resigned to avoid or end an inquiry into their tool usage or some other behavioral aspect. As best as I can tell, when Spartaz resigned the tools previously, there was no active discussion that could have resulted in his tool removal and since he resigned his tools, he has not done anything blatantly in breach of behavior policies (socking, NLT, etc) that would provide a clear enough rationale to avoid re-bitting. Only Arbcom has the discretion to decide when to remove the admin tools for admin abuse or otherwise and the crat position is merely a functionary that processes paperwork in this situation. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:ARBCOM is down the hall on the left Duncan. Bureaucrats are (noting the account owner may wear other hats as well) neither mandated by the community nor technically capable of re-removing the bit now. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Gee, thanks for telling me that I was under discussion. I should also note that we had this discussion before I gave up the bit and that at the time I made the decision I was under so much RL pressure I couldn't deal with anything straight. Maintaining my privacy is more important then scoring internet hit points but suffice it to say the last few months have been the most horrific of my life. If you have problems with specific actions of mine then come and tell me about it and discuss it with me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have sent Xeno and Duncan emails explaining why I acted like I did at the time I have up my bit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the note, though it wasn't really necessary =) –xeno^talk 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that people figured you started the section, so wouldn't need to be notified... –xeno^talk 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Quite so, though if consensus here is that editors should inform the starter of a thread that they have commented within the thread about the subject of the thread, I will do so. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it was only an issue because of the three-day gap between the regular "death" of the thread and when you posted (or four days, if you count the time between the {{done}} tag and your comment). The only reason I read it was because I was surprised to see the "Can I have my bit back please?" section pop up on my watchlist (surprised because I knew what the section was, and that it had long since been dead). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the above section and comment. –xeno^talk 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Lamest edit war ever indeed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the lameness of the edit war, Is anyone else concerned about the initial crat error combined with the fact that he's now gone again when his error causes confusion and apparently unable to respond?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh... It's all sorted now. –xeno^talk 15:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Until the next time. Maybe that will be another few years from now, but who knows.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've long been a proponent of removing the crat bit from some of these "legacy" bureaucrats, but when it gets suggested a great number of the "old guard" swoop in to stop the debate. And yes, before anyone asks, there is a difference between removing +sysop as against +crat through inactivity / lack of use. Still, it won't change so it's best we all move on. This particular selections of reverts was pretty WP:LAME to be fair. Pedro :  Chat  19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no illusions of triggering a recall. However as a minimal sort of action, if one of his more active peers reached out had a frank discussion with him, it might prevent a future embarassment.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Regretfully, where I live all forms of air travel are currently not available. That includes flying pigs I would imagine. Pedro :  Chat  19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the old guard is you're referring to but if I recall correctly the last time de-cratting came up it was the overall community that didn't support it. I would say it doesn't matter if some group of the old guard wants something if the rest of the community wants something else. It's just a question of whether it's worth everybody's time to find out what the overall community wants. I will add that the policy for oversight was pretty simple and painless. I hadn't had a chance to use my oversight tool for about a year and I got an email saying that it would be removed if I didn't use it soon. Since I didn't foresee much extra time to make much use of it, I didn't bother, and it was removed without fuss. While I feel I did a good job and was a reasoned voice on the mailing list when I had a chance to participate, I'm confident it's doing fine without me. - Taxman ^Talk 20:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not refering to you Taxman before you get your knickers in a twist. User:TUF-KAT is the usual example we bring out for these debates before they get archived and forgotten. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No worry. I didn't assume you were referring to me, but even if you were, my point was it wouldn't be a big deal since if the community wanted something no small group of old guard including me should be able to stop it unless it was because of good solid reasoning. - Taxman ^Talk 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal, which failed mainly as a result of a Jimbo veto (I remember since I was the proposer). MBisanz ^talk 20:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to read the link Matt, as I'm simply not that interested in any of this to be honest. But if the proposal failed because of a Jimbo veto then the thought occurs that my "old guard" comment would be somewhat suprisingly accurate.....Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo made a comment about something else which was stretched to assume that 1) he had vetoed Bureaucrat removal, and 2) he had the right to veto such a proposal. I do not agree with either assumption. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it had good support, was a low key proposal. Matt ended it because of what he assumed Jimbo's comment meant and no one caused a fuss over the ending of the proposal basically because Matt started the proposal. That was about it. So it appears I remembered incorrectly. The community did seem to support it last time and it is rather similar to what goes on for many other rights like oversight and steward. Again, it's just a question of whether it's worth the time of a proposal to see again. - Taxman ^Talk 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read through the entirety of the talk page, and disagree with your assessment that it had support. Aiken ♫ 13:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please! I beg you! Let me explain! The reason why I could only use A1DF67 was because my edit history in my Special:Contributions and the history pages of articles had to be attached to my account. If this account is renamed Bowei Huang 2, then my edit history is still attached, it's not dumped. If it is renamed, then I promise that I will never ever edit from User:A1DF67 again. If it is renamed, then I will still only use this account, but it has a different name. I am going to still use this account, but I just simply want it to have a different name. I know about that decision! That decision doesn't say that I can't change its name. So can you please just simply let me change its name?

A1DF67 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The name change was denied because it said there was 'decision made' that the user only use A1DF67, but as far as I can tell it's not so clear cut. It just says he should be restricted to one account only and actually suggested he visit WP:CHU if he wanted the name changed. –xeno^talk 19:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Nihonjoe. Useight (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have asked for my account to be renamed so that this name (Aliasflavius) is no longer associated with the contributions I made on some articles, because they have been changed beyond recognition. I have explained this very clearly. I don't understand why this is a problem. I have asked to have my name "Aliasflavius" changed into something else, like "Antonimator" because this way a different username will be associated with the edits, as all the contributions will be transferred on this new name, right? C'mon guys, I read all the explanations on this subject, I know this is how it works. Just please, change my name, because this is my ID on many sites and I don't want it associated with those edits on Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasflavius (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to bring this here, simply wait for a bureaucrat to fulfill Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Aliasflavius → Antonimator. –xeno^talk 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I somehow suspect that there's not much you can do about this, but I'll give it a try. Basically, I was registered under the username Jhbuk, but I went on holiday on 6 April, and only came back this morning. I realised I had left a couple of GAs open, so I thought I ought to try to close them, so I created the alternate account Jhbuk2, as I didn't really want to use my main account. When I came back, I realised I'd forgotten the passwords to both accounts (I normally use that "remember me" box). When I tried to get a password sent to me via email, it came up with "no email registered". I had registered my email, and I did activate it, so the only thing I can think that's happened is that someone changed my account details as a joke when I last used it (I seem to remember I was in a cafe, and left my laptop on the table, thinking I'd turned it off, but later realising I hadn't, so that seems most plausible). I haven't experienced any other problems though. If you can't do anything, or it would be particularly difficult, then it doesn't matter (I probably won't be able to do much editing for a few months anyway), but I would quite like to get back on the account if possible. 90.199.218.174 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure but I vaguely recall seeing that developers had lent a hand in the past for situations like this. Is there any way we can verify that you are the original owner? Did you ever make an edit where you disclosed your email address, for instance? –xeno^talk 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I still have an email in my inbox I could forward to someone if that helps. I think that I have a shared IP address BTW. Let me have a look for something. 90.199.218.174 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, according to the email: 26 February, IP address 90.199.218.214 (looks like it varies as well). 90.199.218.174 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There's not much we can do, technically -- we don't have the access to pull it off. I guess the first step would be to substantiate your ownership of the account somehow, then we could try to get a dev to do it manually, though they're busy and don't often fulfill such requests. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If I forwarded the email to someone, could they verify that it was sent then, and then do a checkuser on the IP address? To be honest, this probably needs more effort putting in than it's worth. I would like to get back on the account ideally, but it's probably just better to make a new account. 90.199.218.174 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd close it, but I opined :) It's pretty much a no brainer, but 'tis better that it is closed by someone else :) -- Avi (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Popped out of article space, did the deed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I was tempted, but I dare not close an RFA from my phone. --Deskana (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I once flipped a bit from a blackberry, but only once :) -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence! I opined too! Hence the nonclosingtherfaeventhoughisawitwasoverdue. (X! · talk)  · @190  ·  03:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if this template should be added as HTML comment to {{RfB}} as it's already on {{RfA}}. I know it's named "rfa", but it could easily be changed to "rfx" to make it workable with both. Also, I was wondering if it would be fine to adjust the coding and removing some unnecessary parameters. It's completely unnecessary to ask the user for all the question numbers, one can just as easily use {{#expr:{{{1}}}+1}} and {{#expr:{{{1}}}+2}} to always raise the number +1. This would change syntax from {{rfa-question|4|question 4|5|question 5|6|question 6}} to {{rfa-question|4|question 4|question 5|question 6}}, making the template easier to use. Since the template matters for the RfA process, I thought it would be better to ask first. Please let me know what you think, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think it's a good idea to keep {{RfB}} and {{RfA}} more or less in sync with each other, given the similarity; I've added a line that references {{Rfb-question}} (which is just a redirect to {{Rfa-question}}). No opinion about the template syntax. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the change in the coding could be helpful, since it's probably quite annoying to have to spell out every number (of course you need to change the HTML comment to reflect it). On the other hand, that would make it impossible to use the template for numbering like "4a" or "4.1". Regards SoWhy 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is stuff like "4a" or "4.1" actually used that often? At least the current RfAs don't use it like this. If so, then it would be better to leave as is, though there might be options to find out if it's a question or a number by using {{Str ≥ len}} (a number will likely never exceed four or five characters, and a question will always be longer than that), but it might not be worth this hack. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If people want to use 4a, 4.1, etc then they could always manually edit rather than use a template, e.g.:

Example question from me

4.1 Who decided that the plural of goose would be geese?

4.2a Who decided that the plural of sheep would be sheep?

4.2b Have you read Phantomsteve's Laws of RfA (Raul654's laws - Laws of others, rule 288)?

I can't remember the last time that I didn't manually enter my questions rather than templating them! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if a 'crat could weigh in at User talk:21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC). I've blocked the editor for a username violation and a rename is currently being discussed on their talk page. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, back in October, I applied for the temporary removal of my admin rights. I am now ready to resume duties and would be very grateful if this could be arranged. Thank you. – B.hotep •talk• 18:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Gets my backing, but since I've worked with this editor quite a bit, I'd like to defer to my fellow 'crats' decision-making. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, and I couldn't find anything to suggest it was under a cloud, so I've restored the bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) – B.hotep •talk• 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this restoration. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As do I, FWIW. Welcome back Bubba. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Back from break - sysophood restoration thank you :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Links: Right log request and acknowledgement on meta Original source of request. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not restore them. If there is nothing brought to light in the next hour or two, I'll go ahead and restore them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

+2 in one day :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So BN is going a fair bit better than RFA then. No comment on the interpretation of that.... Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just popped in and seen 4 green RfAs in the box at the top of this page, so perhaps RfA ain't as dead as all that... yet. --Dweller (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What a difference 5 days made. Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! AGK 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In my role as a CU I came across this user, which I blocked as a block evading sock. This user voted in AlexandrDmitri and Tide rolls' RFAs. I also voted in AlexandrDmitri's RFA. I would normally strike the votes of Digago, but as I voted in one of the RFAs, I request a non-involved crat strike both Digago's votes and if they feel appropriate, strike mine from AlexandrDmitri's. Notified both candidates too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Did the sockpuppet vote twice? To be honest, Rlevse, there's no need to recuse yourself if you're simply using common sense. I really don't think anyone is going to reasonably complain about it. Aiken ♫ 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Digago voted once in each RFA. I thought it best to post here and let another crat decide. Thanks for the support though. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the fuss that resulted when I used both my checkuser and bureaucrat powers in conjunction, and the fact that was all agreed it was a bad thing and a mistake, Rlevse definitely did the right thing coming here. --Deskana (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When was this? Aiken ♫ 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2, specifically Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion. Shubinator (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad memories. It's not nice having to relive your worst mistakes, especially when you strive to make so few of them. --Deskana (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SHake it off, chin up as Roger Davies would say. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the situation there was very different. But, sometimes it is better to be confident with the position the community entrusted you to have. Aiken ♫ 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Soap already did it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have an usurp request open here. I made - at least what I believe - the proper notice on the target talk even before I finalized the usurp request. ClueBot VI, however, thinks the notice hasn't been sent.

Would this situation fail my request, and if so, what can I do to avoid it? - aeris ^talk 12:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can simply add a note with a link to the diff of you adding the notice. I always verify the notice, anyway. Useight (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for your help :) - aeris ^talk 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbsdy lives seems to have left under quite strange circumstances, and actually since he was re-sopped here as a returnee under no cloud there were multiple instances of disruption involving him, he has retired as I know and has user page deleted. One of his essays was nominated for deletion today and he appears to still be watching his talkpage as he commented soon after http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tbsdy_lives&curid=27358511&diff=363746318&oldid=363741621 by saying "don't care" and deleting the template. As it was also mentioned on Newyokbrad's talkpage recently I was wondering, what is his current Administrator status and what would be the position regarding that status if he chose to return? At this present time he appears to still be a Sysop.Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There's not much that can be done by the crats. If he does anything more than blank his talk page with immature comments then we can go to ArbCom, until then, I'd say just leave him to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Something clearly needs to be done about it, sooner rather than later. Personally I think he should be desopped for disruptive activity (or something like that) or we can throw it to arbcom or have a straw poll somewhere but as far as recall goes IMO the community has lost faith in his ability to act as an administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'crats can't do anything about this. You've had suggestions of where to take this issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And he is currently under some sort of unofficial Arbcom protection, enabling him to have his talk page deleted contrary to policy, so you may feel able to forgive editors who are less than confident that Arbcom would take a dispassionate view of his behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it is advice from a Bureaucrat that I was looking for, a bit of politeness would be nice Treasury tag, I don't see any problem with bringing this here, I was directed here from the AN talkpage. If Arbcom is the place to take this then ill ask there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This situation is being addressed off-wiki. Please note that the user in question has been neither editing nor administering for more than one week now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true, he made 3 edits in the past week. Aiken ♫ 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ministerial actions like unsubscribing from mailing lists and keeping his talkpage blank do not, in any meaningful fashion, constitute "editing." As noted above, this situation is being addressed off-wiki, and there is a reason it is being handled in that fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity it would be reasonable to expect that the upshot of these off-wiki discussions to conclude with a statement on the Admin. status of this editor. Leaky Caldron 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Leaky Caldron 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth a formal response from a Crat to the OP. The summary at the top of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats is quite useful - we currently can only add the admin flag to a user, but cannot remove it, even if we wish to. For example, if one of us made a silly mistake and accidentally made someone an admin, instead of a rollbacker, we'd have to ask someone (like a WP:Steward) for help. <Quickly, or there'd be a fine old furore.> --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd care to do a practice drill of that mistake with my account? ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By way of update, Tbsdy lives has agreed to relinquish his adminship, and I've posted the appropriate request on Meta. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this "under a cloud"? (I did ask on Brad's page but this is directly relevant to 'Crats). I ask becasue there has been a lot of confusion lately about whether or not certain admins have left under a cloud, and becasue this editor has previously retired while blocked and then come back under another name and reclaimed tools via this board. DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, automatic restoration of adminship on request would not apply to this user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely "under a cloud". No question about it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As the Valley Girls say "fer shure fer fhure", it's under a cloud/controversial circumstances. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me just take this opportunity to say that I wish logs were kept locally, so that the "under a cloudness" was marked here rather than at Meta. *sigh* EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there are a few very vocal people who can't stand the thought of that, as well as the horribly awesome power of 'crats being able to remove the bits they can turn on. Unless something amazing happens, the logs may never be here. I agree it would be much better to have them all here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have generally, and vocally, opposed the 'crats having a right granted that was not under their original mandate c.f. WP:RFB. Nevertheless this in not unprecedented. By far the majority of admins are not mandated to grant rights such as rollback or account creator, much less even use the revision delete tool that comes with so many painful warnings we're all too scared to go near it. It would appear strange that I can grant and revoke rollback but Joe and EVula cannot revert adminship. After all, if we can come up with something as utterly draconian in tone as the REVDEL guidelines, I think even I can trust even our most out of touch bureaucrats to leave the damn ability well alone if they're not sure. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's always seemed to be an unacceptable anomaly to me as well, which is why I've refused rollback rights and will continue to refuse any others granted by administrators on the same basis, including whatever comes along with flagged revisions. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could come up with a proposed draconian guideline/policy regarding it. I thought the one that was created previously was pretty straightforward, and made it very clear when removal of rights could, and could not, happen. However, some people believe that consensus can change, except for in the case of bureaucrat rights because it wasn't included in the "original mandate", as if Jimbo's word was God's. I'm sure he's a great guy, but even the great Jimbo is fallible (as evidenced by the recent hullabaloo about the removal of some images from Commons). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. For closure purposes on this board, that request has been carried out.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a request for the return of my sysop status I voluntarily resigned in October 2009. This was entirely voluntary and I am (as far as I am aware) an editor in good standing at enwiki (and elsewhere) with a clean block log. Details of my successful RfA in Decemeber 2007 can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattinbgn.

While I do not anticipate being a heavily active administrator, I do feel that I could help out on the bits of the project that currently retain my interest (mainly Australia-related topics, especially articles on rural towns). I look forward to taking up the mop once more and please let me know if there is anything else I need to provide at this stage. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do this in some hours or once another Crat has also agreed it's appropriate, as is our custom. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. I'm not aware of any issues which would prevent this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, with two of us concurring and this request having sat without negative comment for some 7+ hours, I've gone ahead and restored the user's mop. Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Would have worked for me too. :) (X! · talk)  · @009  ·  23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please could you take a look at this request. Peter 18:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that this request be granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Then go see WP:RFB! MBisanz ^talk 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for a while now, but after checking on CHU and hanging around RfA for the day, I must say that the bureaucrats are doing an excellent job lately of keeping the backlogs in check. Keep it up and thanks for all your hard work. Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from all of us, but I don't do much CHU, mostly RFA/B stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, yup. Thanks for the kudos. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The other (big bullying meanie) 'crats gobble up the flashy RfA/B's, so I end up doing mainly usurps :) -- Avi (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I never do usurps, so at least someone is doing them. That whole page is confusing to me, so I just let those who know it handle it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I generally don't do crap these days. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gulp, I've been "writing articles" lately too. Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles all the way! (I do the odd photo too). Secretlondon (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the benefit to being a Commons 'crat. There are usually a couple RfAs every week, and only a couple active 'crats to compete against! Juliancolton (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I mostly upload and do gnomish things over on commons, so I don't know that I'd pass as an admin there. Otherwise, I might run. It would be useful in some instances such as blatant co[yvios because then I'd be able to just handle them. Also with OTRS stuff. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you edited steadily for a couple months, I think you would have no problem passing. Juliancolton (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I resigned in March 2010 to help myself deal with some RL issues. As far as I know, no clouds were involved (except the ones I'd like to go away and let some summer in, thank you very much). As those issues have eased, and I've found that my attempt to ratchet down my editing level hasn't worked as well as I hoped, I'd like to restore the sysop flag, so I don't have to deal with people telling me "you're still an admin, you just don't have the buttons" -- I'd rather be fully one or fully the other. :-) Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there's no obstacle to resysopping here of which I'm aware. Live long and prosper. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no problems here either, but one would like the consensus of at least one more 'crat, as we tend to do these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). Resysopp'im! –xeno^talk 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If this thread goes on long enough (looks to top of page, 5 hours or so to go) and your RfB stays at the 95% level, maybe you'll be allowed to do the honours, Xeno... Bencherlite^Talk 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, no rush here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Resysop him immediately, he's shirked his responsibilities for long enough! =) –xeno^talk 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Deskana (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's finally happening. The speculation is ended. Please return my admin and crat tools, after I a month ago. (X! · talk)  · @616  ·  13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry X!, he beat me to it =p –xeno^talk 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

;-) Ya snooze, ya lose! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at a clear sky, seeing if any cloud in sight could be found ;p –xeno^talk 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, X!   — Jeff G. ツ 20:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

...here. I always get my renaming venues muddled up, so could someone oblige? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved interwiki bot with over 7000 edits. β^_command 01:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and operator notified. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking of giving it a flag and avoiding the paperwork since its already got 7k edits and been active for 6+ months. β^_command 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked BAG. They said it should be blocked--specifically your mentor MBisanz. So I did. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

found another: TjBot (talk · contribs) β^_command 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Dinamik-bot a global bot? Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dinamik-bot is and should be alright per WP:GLOBALBOTS. The other two aren't. Amalthea 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We need clarification on that since MBisanz voted for that and he's the one that said Dinamik should be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

iirc, global bots are not able to run on enwiki if they are not explicitely approved. Enwiki opted out of the global bot process. (X! · talk)  · @492  ·  10:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Global bots are only allowed on en.wiki for interwiki linking; so strictly interwiki linking is fine, but cosmetic changes should be disabled unless they also have local approval for that. –xeno^talk 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Until this gets sorted out more, as there seems to be clear confusion over the issue, I've unblocked Dinamik-bot for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any particular confusion per se - more of an issue that our local global bot policy is probably not very well-known. Indeed, I blocked a globally-approved interwiki bot once in the past before someone pointed the above link out to me. –xeno^talk 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Restrictions_on_specific_tasks also says that they are meant to follow local requirements, which ones should they? since one of ours is that bots are to get approval, so someone might want to expand that so its a tad clearer on what it means. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 02:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

[9] Tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

and another: JackieBot (talk · contribs)} β^_command 04:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Message left for operator at ru.wiki [10]. I don't think there's a particularly pressing need to block it unless it starts running amok, or they don't comply. –xeno^talk 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, proper adherence to our bot policies is important, and anyone running a bot (locally or globally or in any other fashion) should be expected to comply. Nonetheless, conspicuously missing from this conversation is any discussion of whether there is any problem with the contributions from these bots. Is there? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Brad, that's like saying "you're banned but if you behave you can evade your ban". Same basic argument. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a "globalbot" switch to the status parameter of {{bot}} that provoides a brief explanation and links and boldly set the status for User:Dinamik-bot as such. –xeno^talk 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the status of the other two bots mentioned herein? Do they qualify? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not unless they appear at Special:GlobalUsers/Global bot. They can apply for speedy approval at WP:BRFA if they don't want to apply for global bot permission at m:Bot policy#Global bots. –xeno^talk 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Xeno looks right, I had forgotten about the exception for interwiki bots and thought we still required speedy local approval. My bad. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We all goof. Tks to Xeno for taking care of these three bots. Seems two do in fact need approval here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bersibot (talk · contribs)
• Ebrambot (talk · contribs)

can be added to the list. β^_command 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the above two bots, not knowing of the above conversation about global bots and what-not. If I made a mistake in the blocks, I will not oppose unblocking. –MuZemike 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Please remember to disable autoblock when blocking bots for simply being unapproved; also block notes should be left locally and you might also consider contacting the operators at their home wiki (though I've done this already). –xeno^talk 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So what was decided?

So what was decided, they need to be speedy approved or not? Peachey88 (Public) (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any bot without a global flag needs local approval. JackieBot's already been speedied thru, Bersibot's was just transcluded as was TjBot's, and Ebrambot has yet to file. –xeno^talk 04:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish to be renamed to "s0aasdf2sf" in order to vanish from Wikipedia. I am not going to start fresh under a new identity. I am simply exercising my right to leave Wikipedia.

Thanks

TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)TechOutsider

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, there appear to still be 5656 contributions of the former username per this and that, or maybe it is 6177 contributions of the latter username per the others.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It sometimes takes weeks for all edits to be reattributed, especially when there was a fairly big edit count. --Dweller (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks guys for the quick response :). 98.82.127.6 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That will be the Job Queue processing them. Peachey88 (Public) (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I resigned my sysop status whilst in good standing in January 2009, to have break and refocus RL priorities. I've since eased my way back in and respectfully request its reinstatement. Although I don't see myself heavily involved in admin activities initially, I have several article and history merges I'd like to oversee. –Moondyne 06:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I know of no reason this request should not be granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this user so I checked Special:UserRights, and found there is no record of having been an admin on en wiki. Why is that? Have you changed names or something? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Moondyne apparently had his/her rights removed here per own request. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the fact that they've deleted pages and blocked themselves before enough evidence? T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of admins blocking themselves once, but three times? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It happens :( Rights were initially assigned here. Account was subsequently moved. –Moondyne 15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did some digging (I'm not a 'crat, just a curious editor) and found the granting of the admin bit and the RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think Moondyne has to remove the userbox on his userpage before getting his rights back. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind if I link your RFA (or the redirect-to-your-RFA) when granting the right to alleviate further potential confusion? –xeno^talk 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Requests for adminship/Moondyne already redirects to the old one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In the userrights log, I mean. –xeno^talk 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've outed myself, so go ahead. :( –Moondyne 15:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you removed it, but yes, I found it before you linked it here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done You're all set [11]. –xeno^talk 15:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. –Moondyne 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A user with 5000 edits says he forgot his pwd, created a new account and wants the old account renamed to the new account. There are prior ANI and AE threads on this. I asked CU User:Brandon to chime in the thread, which is here: User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Moving. I've never seen CU used to prove two accounts are the same to do a rename so I'm seeking other input. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that when sysadmins take over accounts with forgotten passwords, more proof is needed then just the IP matching. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm ready to provide any extra info if needed. NIGHTBOLT t 22:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you have email enabled for the old account? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like no, that option does not work. NIGHTBOLT t 06:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you still have access to ru:User:Brandmeister? Prodego ^talk 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as well as in other wikis. I use different passwords. NIGHTBOLT t 06:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would call the accounts  Confirmed for socking purposes. Brandon (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An edit from ru:User:Brandmeister would be good enough for me, and you can probably get the en user back by confirming with the ru account. Prodego ^talk 06:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made some recent edits there, such as this one. NIGHTBOLT t 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I got half way through this and thought of something else that you don't normally see a problem with on a rename--the password moves with the renamed account. So if we rename Brandmeister to Nightbolt (or anything else for that matter), you won't know the password to it since you don't currently know the password to it. Sorry I didn't think of this before but it's not normally something we need to worry about. Ideas anyone? Also, the account is SUL'd so the pwd on ru wiki should be the same as on en wiki so I don't understand why the pwd works on ru wiki and not on en wiki. I genuinely don't understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that the developers have reset passwords in last-resort type of situations, though they don't like to do it often because I imagine there are many more people who forget their passwords than there are people who need them enough to go through every step to recover them. —Soap— 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Rlevse, the password on ruwiki is different. Actually Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_the_password.3F suggests moving and says "this will officially link your old and new identities". Is there some authorization log, which traces every log-in to check for possible hack attack on Brandmeister account? NIGHTBOLT t 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done OK, but if it you're stuck with the old pwd, there's nothing the crats can do to help. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So I must recall the old pwd to enter as Nightbolt? I can't login now as Nightbolt with associated pwd, pwd e-mailing does not work. 213.154.0.76 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you have email set? Because I don't see an 'E-mail this user' when visiting User:Nightbolt. Have you tried the merge en:User:Nightbolt by using the "manage your global account" from another wiki with SUL? –xeno^talk 14:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I receive "the account "Nightbolt" could not be automatically confirmed as belonging to you on the following sites (en.wikipedia.org); most likely they have a different password from your primary account" when merging on Meta. Does it mean that my Nightbolt account assumed Brandmeister's password? 213.154.0.76 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No the "old Nightbolt" account's pwd should have moved to the "renamed Nightbolt" account and the old "Brandmeister" acct pwd, the one you forgot, should now be the "new Nightbolt" acct's pwd. This is what I told you before would happen. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I responded to a request today on the unblock mailing list from a user with a SUL account on several language WPs, and wants to create the same one here. The problem is that they are using an IP that is part of an anon-only, account-creation-blocked range (hence the email to unblock-en-l). Assuming they meet our usual requirements, I'd go ahead and create the account for them as usual, but I can't because the username is reserved for the SUL system. I was wondering if you knew what is the best way of dealing with this?

My suggestion was to create an account with a different username, and then request it be re-named to the SUL name - is that ok? I don't think there is much of a problem with people claiming they have accounts on other SUL wikis when they don't, but if they do I guess it could be a problem as you can't verify they own the already merged part of the SUL account can you? Peter 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems sensible. We can then handle the request the usual way - by asking the user to post a diff of a confirmation edit made while logged in on the home wiki of the SUL. But just double check that the username hasn't been used already for significant edits on en:, before asking them to jump through the hoops. Apologies if my answer isn't totally comprehensible - it's late here, and this Cockney is cream-crackered. --Dweller (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

what you can do is unblock the individual ip for a short time which will enable him to SUL into en.wp. β^_command 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand's suggestion seems much simpler, if you can get the timings aligned. --Dweller (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even just tweaking the block to allow account creation would do it, I think. –xeno^talk 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I guess which way to go depends a bit on the nature of the situation (like who the block is trying to prevent editing in the first place, and how quickly the person who wants to account responds). Peter 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Betacommand's suggestion, as long as the user creates an account quickly after an admin temporarily unblocks the IP, which would prevent more vandalism from the IP. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is covered in a page already, but... I was recently blocked on de.wiki because my username is offensive. I've been invited to take another username, etc. If I am renamed here, will it also rename me on the other wikis?  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no global renaming (yet). You'll need to go to the other wikis one-by-one. –xeno^talk 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Xeno is right; there currently is no global renaming. You can ask stewards on meta to rename you on wikis without active bureaucrats, but for wikis with active bureaucrats, you will have to ask the bureaucrats or go to a "changing username" page individually. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you're careful to choose a new username that is free on all wikis that you care about, ideally all of them. --Dweller (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|I have closed the discussion as this is the improper forum for this discussion. Concerns regarding the actions of an editor should be brought up at WP:RFC/U. If someone wants to continue discussing this issue, please open a discussion there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Close was reverted by another editor; no longer resolved for now, at least.

---

I find the situation with Herostratus' "recall" RfA rather troubling. It seems to me that this RfA is basically an out-of-process ad hoc procedure and that it should be closed as improperly filed. Otherwise there will be a substantial difficulty for any crat in deciding how to close this RfA, how to evaluate consensus and what to count as pass/fail. For a regular RfA the basic underlying question is: Should the candidate be granted admin tools? For a recall RfA the underlying question is: Should the candidate be stripped off the admin tools? These are two rather different questions with, presumably, different standards for what constitutes consensus. For the first question we have a well established procedure with a fairly clear understanding of how to evaluate the consensus. For the second question such understanding is absent. There recently was a lengthy RfC about requests for de-adminship, dealing exactly with these issues. As I understand it, the RfC was closed as no consensus, meaning, in particular, that there is no current consensus on how to evaluate the outcome of de-adminship requests. I do not think that the crats should (or have the authority, given the RfC's outcome) to establish such standards themselves, based on Her's ad hoc request. There is an additional problem. Hero requested that admins recuse themselves from !voting in his recall RfA. I think that excluding admins from !voting was an ill-advised idea and there is already at least one admin (Cirt) who has !voted. There may be more admins who will do that later. In any event, the fact that some admins will comply with Hero's request and other wont will inevitably skew the results in fairly unpredictable ways. To the extent that a well established process exists, I don't think that an individual user should be allowed to rewrite its rules based on his own wishes. IMO, the recall RfA should be closed by a crat as improperly filed and Hero should be advised that the only option the current procedure allows is for him to resign the tools first and then to file a regular new RfA for being granted admin tools. That way it will be clear which question is being decided and how consensus should be evaluated. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

support As I menetioned on Hero's page before the RfA began, I don't like it and as it has materialized, I like it even less.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm going to avoid expressing my own opinion on the RFA and speak only as a bureaucrat here) Technically speaking, the closing bureacurat couldn't do anything anyway. If it passes, no action is taken by the bureaucrat. If it fails, then he has to go to meta and ask to have his permission removed himself, so no action is taken by the bureaucrat. I'm not sure it's a bureaucrat matter. Essentially, my point is that it's up to the community to decide whether or not to close the RFA, and judging by the participation in the RFA at present, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that it should be closed as "improperly filed". It's basically just a reconfirmation RFA in a slightly different packaging, and although recall RFAs draw some criticism, they are generally respected in some sense by the community (by allowing it to run its full duration, and treating the results as fairly binding). All things considered, I do not think it would be proper for a bureacurat to take action right now. --Deskana (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But what does "passes" mean in this case? Which question is being decided? And how is consensus on that question to be evaluated? Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In a typical reconfirmation RFA, a "pass" (excuse the terminology) means that the person retains their administrator rights, and a "fail" means that they do not. The RFA itself states "If I "pass", nothing happens; if I "lose", the closing bureaucrat removes my admin status". This makes it nothing more than a reconfirmation RFA in disguise. The consensus is evaluated in exactly the same way that an RFA is evaluated. Note that bureaucrats do not have the capability of removing administrator rights, nor do we have the authority to request removal on meta, essentially making the RFA completely unenforcable, which is a standard criticism of reconfirmation RFAs. But note that none of this has anything to do with bureaucrats, it's just standard things that any RFA regular would be able to tell you. As before, the crux of my point is this: this really is nothing other than a reconfirmation RFA, and although they may not be liked by the whole community, they are typically respected enough to carry out there duration. Therefore bureaucrat action is not appropriate at this time. --Deskana (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. To me the question "Does the admin retain their admin tools" sounds rather different from the question "Should the user be granted admin tools", with, presumably, different standards of consensus required. The existing RfA process is designed to deal with the latter question but not with the former. It is not clear to me that the users !voting in Hero'sRfA understand which question is really being asked and, consequently, what they are !voting for. Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And herein lies a standard problem with reconfirmation RFAs. But it's not up to the bureaucrats to fix that for you. We're the clerks of the process, the community are the people who control the process really. So if you want to fix it, you need to convince the community that you're right, not us bureaucrats. :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Except for the obvious SNOW/NOTNOW cases, only a crat can close an RfA; that is what we have crats for. In my opinion this is exactly what is required in this case, before this thing becomes even more of a train wreck than it already is. Crats do have the authority to close the RfA now, while it would be a problematic move for a regular user or even an admin. I have just looked through the RfA and it is pretty clear that the !voters there understand the underlying question in widely different ways. Some view it as a question about desysopping; in particular, some of the "support" !votes say that they do not think the offenses of the candidate merit desysopping. Some others, particularly in the oppose column, understand the question as the matter of re-sysopping, arguing that under the current standards, the candidate would not be approved if he run for a regular RfA. If I had to !vote myself, I would probably !vote against desysopping but also against re-sysopping (if the cnadidate resigned first). Since the RfA's question currently is not well posed, I have no idea what to do if I wanted to cast a !vote there. I am sure I am not the only one. Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In honesty, I completely disagree with you. I see this as nothing more than a standard reconfirmation RFA and, as I have stated above, they are tolerated by the community and as such it would not be appropriate for me to halt this RFA. It's not up to the bureaucrats to decide what is and is not acceptable in an RFA, that's the community's job. I have invited other bureaucrats to comment here, but I'm afraid that because of the reasons I have stated above, I will not take action. --Deskana (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a couple of "re-confirmation" RfAs before. I don't think they represent a standard or well accepted practice, particularly due to the ill-defined nature of the question being asked. In the few re-confirmation RfAs that I remember seeing, this point did not matter since the candidates were entirely non-controversial and their cases were very clear cut. This is not the case here where the candidate is controversial and it does matter a great deal what question exactly is being asked. Anyway, if this RfA remains open, I really do not envy the closing crat who will have to try to untangle this mess. Nsk92 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It may well turn out that no bureaucrat will try to untangle it, as it is not being drawn from a representative sample of the community. –xeno^talk 00:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen an RfA that did involve a representative sample of the community. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent, edit conflict) You're right, many believe that they don't represent a well-accepted practice and that they are ill-defined. Again, all standard arguments against reconfirmation RFAs. But a bureaucrats job is not to decide what is and what is not acceptable to the community, it's their job to implement it on a technical level by handing out administrator flags and determining consensus. So until there's a consensus against reconfirmation RFAs or this particular RFA, it would be completely inappropriate for me to shut it down as a bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see two problems here; desysopping vs reconfirmation. They are not the same thing. Desysopping is largely the province of ArbCom, and is usually applied for "obvious and gross" abuse of Admin privileges. Reconfirmation is "back me or sack me" at the request of the Admin, whether as a result of Recall or otherwise; but both recall and reconfirmation are flawed processes, because Admins can set up their own recall criteria to effectively "head off at the pass" any criticism whatsoever, and those criteria are not subject to review or consensus. Reconfirmation is no better, because ideally the Admin should surrender the bit and then seek a new RfA; whereas what actually happens is that if there is no consensus to reconfirm, the Admin need not resign the bit (except n a matter of honour), and can continue as before. That is unsatisfactory. Admins seekig reconfirmation should be required to resign the bit before seeking reconfirmation, otherwise the whole process is a waster of time and effort. Rodhullandemu 00:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deskana, you bring up an excellent point that whatever the outcome of the reconfirmation RfA, there is no role for the bureaucrat. However, I don't know that this information is widely known. I'm not sure I can justify spending time to evaluate the issues if the results is potentially meaningless. If it is the position of the 'crat community that nothing will happen, regardless of the outcome, I think it would be wise to post this information at the RfA. That may affect the decision of some people regarding how much time they choose to invest in the review. It may well be that a community consensus of "fail" means that Herostratus voluntarily relinquishes the bit, but I think those contributing to the discussion should not be under the impression that any action will be taken by 'crats or anyone else absent Herostratus's voluntary action.--SPhilbrickT 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: The page, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, leads to what it refers to as "a default procedure and set of criteria", which states, "The venue for re-confirmation is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Following a successful recall petition, the admin submits a new RfA, making clear that if it fails, they will resign. (At the admin's discretion, they can resign first and submit a new RfA at their own convenience.) The standard for the RfA, just as for any RfA, is community consensus: if the user has consensus to remain an admin, the RfA is successful; if they lack such consensus, it is unsuccessful. Admins who resign during or as the result of a recall process are considered to have done so "under a cloud" and should re-apply at RfA to regain adminship." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

Nsk92, with the greatest of respect, and without making any judgement whatsoever about the actual RfA at this stage (as I have not yet analysed the background) I think that your request for Bureaucrat intervention at this time is not appropriate, and not something a 'crat should have to deal with. It is, quit simply, not their job.

I suggest that someone a) make the RfA clearer, maybe with some heading/mbox at the top of 'support' and 'oppose' to make it abundantly clear what a vote in each section represents, and b) On the talk page of anyone who may have misunderstood, explain it, and ask them to revisit. That should resolve the issue that you have raised.

Re. "admins recuse themselves from voting" - I do not see anything specifically 'out of process' that negates the validity of the RfA. A candidate is perfectly at liberty to say anything they damn-well please in their statement, and whether or not other Wikipedians take any notice is entirely up to them.

In addition (and not directed at any specific people here) I'd like to remind everyone that this noticeboard is not the place to discuss policies and procedures; it is for "tasks related to the Bureaucrat permission" - and this request is not one of those tasks, according to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats.  Chzz  ►  01:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Err, cosing RfAs is one of the main tasks of the bureaucrats, and they'll have to close this one eventually, in some way. I am just saying that, IMO, the RfA should be closed now. Apart from the issue of admin participation in the RfA itself, my main problem with it is that the underlying question is not well posed and people do not really know what they are !voting for. Looking that at the support !votes, it is clear that many of them understand the question as that of desysopping (to desysop or not). Many of the opposes, on the other hand, view the RfA as basically a de novo RfA where the basic question is whether someone should be granted admin rights. With such confusion about the meaning of the question asked in this RfA, it will be impossible to judge consensus at RfA's closing in any meaningful way. Nsk92 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if bureaucrats aren't directly involved, they will probably be the ones who finally close the case by determining consensus and (if the candidate failed the reconfirmation RFA) tell a steward to desysop the admin (who in this case is Herostratus). Which brings up another question: What is consensus in this case? Some will argue that there needs to be the normal consensus in a normal RFA to keep his admin rights; others will argue that the normal consensus is required to desysop Herostratus. Reconfirmation RFAs have much too many gray areas, which should be clarified somewhere else, but that is a different story and should not be dealt with here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

and (if the candidate failed the reconfirmation RFA) tell a steward to desysop the admin Please note that Deskana specifically rejected this. I think Deskana is right, but you support my point, which is that this is not widely known. I think I bureaucrat should add a note to the RfA indicating that they will close it after seven days, but there is no other 'crat action will be undertaken—specifically, no 'crat will remove the bit (because they technically cannot), not will they tell a steward to do so (because that tis not a 'crat duty).--SPhilbrickT 12:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If old-school admins show up again and start doing things the old way, it's reasonable for the community to insist they learn that things have changed ... but it usually takes a year to understand enough about the community to pass an RFA, do we want to boot the old guys if they don't "get it" soon after returning? And suppose the old guys don't want to change, suppose they like the way things used to be done? What better way to create a little drama for the cause (generally with good intentions, I think) than to misbehave enough to trigger a recall, where you can get the whole community arguing over your favorite issue? And hey, if you don't like the outcome, you can always ignore it. I'm really not very positive on recall RFAs at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that Ncmvocalist has reverted Nihonjoe's close of this RFA. I struck Nihonjoe's resolved template from above since apparently it's not actually resolved. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Am I mistaken or did Nmcvocalist actually undo a 'crat action without any discussion? That's not going to reduce the drama level round here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If I, as a non-bureaucrat, may venture an opinion: I think this process is stupid, but maybe it would be best to just let it run as is, anyway. I think it might be the least drama-inducing way, assuming there is a bureaucrat ready to render a result at the end. If there's none, it's probably best to close it now as a waste of time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised at Nihonjoe's close, so I tend to support Nmcvocalist's decision, though I agree that some discussion would have been a useful dramah-avoidance measure. Picking up on Heimstern's view of the process: perhaps, but it's a process that Herostratus opted into, and it's a well-established process (hence my surprise that a 'crat would close it and recommend RFCU instead - I assumed that WP:RECALL was a well-understood option). I looked into recall before my RfA, declared in my RfA that I would be subject to recall, and opted into recall after my RfA. If recall is now to be replaced with RFCU I'd have some concerns, and I'd imagine that some editors who supported my RfA may also have concerns. TFOWR 10:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something or has Ncmvocalist been promoted to a bureaucrat recently? He has reverted a crat closure of an RfA because he disagreed with it. Closing RfAs is one of the main functions of crats. If a crat closure of an RfA is to be reverted, it must be done by another crat, presumably after a crat chat. Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist's reversions of my edits were not supported by any policy or guideline. They were entirely inappropriate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 13:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd appreciate a quick crat chat on the question of closing the RFA with the goal of acknowledging that 100 people are talking about 20 different interesting questions all at the same time, so it's time to acknowledge that this particular RFA can't be fair to the community or the candidate until all the issues have been worked out and everyone has had their say. My feeling is that the crats were elected to have exactly this kind of calming influence at those rare times when it's called for and would be appreciated. But YMMV. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2 is not an RFA - it is a self-directed process that is draped in the garments of an RFA, being hosted at WP:RFA, looks somewhat like an RFA - but it is most certainly not an RFA: it is not being drawn from a representative sample of the community. I predict that no bureaucrat will touch it after the time lapses, except perhaps to untransclude it from WP:RFA. At that point, Herostratus will have to appoint someone to make a determination, or make the determination for himself. I don't see a need to remove it from WP:RFA or close it at the present time though. Let it run, if Herostratus wishes.

Bureaucrats have traditionally closed these "reconfirmation RFAs" (such as LHvU's) but they were under no requirement to do so - firstly, because the position is a volunteer one, but more importantly because admin recall is not a community-sanctioned process and bureaucrats have no mandate or ability to desysop. –xeno^talk 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would support any 'crat who chose to close this again. It is not an RfA it is a joke. This is not the proper forum and just because Hero wants to use the RfA platform does not mean that the RfA platform is the proper one. If and When 'crats are put into this position, it will be by the community, not by an individual. My hat's off to Joe for closing it already, will another 'crat step up and close it again?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think any crat should "close" this (as such). Nihonjoe tried to "bring it to an end" as out-of-process, but perhaps a better way to go about this would be to move it to User:Herostratus/Reconfirmation discussion. Herostratus is free to self-direct his recall process and bureaucrats should not interfere as such, but he should not be permitted to platform it at WP:RFA if he is not willing to accept normal procedures (most importantly, open-discussion among a representative sample of the community - this includes users that currently have the administrator bit flipped on). –xeno^talk 14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Herostratus struck the request for admins to recuse. As such, my comments are slightly less relevant. Nevertheless, this "RFA" has had a rough start, and I'm not sure that the various issues can be untangled as a result. –xeno^talk 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Total agreement. I'm of the strong opinion that we should have a de-adminship process (and that the bureaucrats should be tasked with maintaining it), but at the end of the day, the community has not yet said that we can do this, and bureaucrats are executors of the community's will; Herostratus's "RfA" should not be happening at WP:RFA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• If Herostratus agrees to accept a normal bureaucrat RFA close that will be fine, if not then he should explain what his closure conditions are. I don't see as closing presently is needed or advantageous. I have asked him the question on his talkpage, lets wait and see what he says. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  As I have tried to intimate above, there is nothing 'normal' about the page, so it cannot be given a normal close... –xeno^talk 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, I'm not up on wiki-lore enough to know the policy details, but it strikes me that Herostratus is in principle trying to do something reasonable and laudable. Over 50 people have now commented in his "reconfirmation discussion". The appropriate process is new and unclear, and the venue may be misjudged. But at this stage if it needs to be somewhere else, let's move it rather than close it and leave the commentary/discussion in limbo. Martinp (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps normal is not the correct expression. I see he has recently adapted his nomination section of the RFA to state this...which I think makes it clear that we can proceed. He has also opened up for Administrators to vote also , so I would say the conditions of commenting and closure are now clear. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination section from the RFA. Herostratus (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. This is an administrator recall. I am an administrator now, but six editors in good standing have initiated a recall here. A bureaucrat should close this RfA exactly like any RfA. If I "pass", nothing happens; if I "lose", I promise to immediately go to m:SRP and request removal of my admin status under the "under a cloud" provisions. Just as with any RfA, you if think I should be an administrator, you should vote Support; if not, Oppose. It is entirely in the hands of the closing bureaucrat whether he will use the same closing criteria as any other RfA or not. (brought from the nomination section of the RFA) Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Xeno is correct, it will not be a normal closure at all and will certainly need a crat chat and likely a detailed statement, but considering the Users own attempts to be open to the process I feel that under the circumstances that editors should read the issues and comment a vote which will imo bring more closure and less drama than closing early due to out of process issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the proper venue for this is the RfC section on user conduct. Recall is a voluntary procedure and not part of the wiki RfA process. If Hero requests, entrusts, a particular person to close the request, and would consider such closure binding, it is irrelevant if said person is a 'crat; especially as it would require a voluntary request by Hero to the stewards to remove the rights. So, I think this should be moved to RfC from RfA to prevent confusion and Hero should request of someone (crat or not) to be the arbitor. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that bureaucrats cannot and should not act in any "official" capacity as bureaucrats here. See below at #Reconfirmation RFAs for more on this. –xeno^talk 15:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• If he wants to use RFA as his method of recall, I don't see why he can't. Just let it run, and since there's no direct desysopping the bureaucrats have to do, there's not really anything to worry about. Mountain out of a molehill, I like that the user is doing this method. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see why he can't either - as long as the community allows it, but I similarly don't think he can expect or request bureaucratic intervention at the finale (see below). –xeno^talk 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether this RFA is a reconfirmation RFA (which basically means that Herostratus resigns his adminship and re-runs for adminship) or a desysopping RFA (where basically Herostratus still retains his adminship and has to have his adminship removed by normal RFA percentage (around 85% at the least) vote). If it is the former, then Herostratus will most likely resign his adminship; if it is the latter, he will most likely keep his adminship. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "desysopping RFA". –xeno^talk 20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry if I'm butting in here. I know closing RFAs is part of the bureaucrats' role, but for a request like this, is any interpretation of the results really necessary? Could the closing bureaucrat just let it go for the normal time and then close it with the summary "Since the candidate is already an administrator, he/she is free to interpret the results him/herself"? That would leave it up to Herostratus to interpret whether he/she has the support of the community to continue as an admin. Kcowolf (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I somewhat agree, but there's no reason to let this run full time, as it cannot possibly end in a crat changing something. From the top of WP:RFA: "Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops) [...]" Herostratus has already become an administrator. A recall thread being at the place where tools are originally granted makes no more sense than posting Herostratus's administrator tools at WP:AFD to decide if his tools should be deleted. The discussion should be closed immediately with something like the quoted statement Kcowolf suggests. Townlake (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing this RfA

Per the above discussion and various other discussions, I have decided -- this is still not set in stone and objections are welcome, but I want to broadcast this soon -- to close the RfA myself with the help of two other editors. I have asked two other editors to form a trio with me, majority rules. I have selected editors who I think are fair-minded -- one voted against me, one did not vote -- so I hope this will quash any nascent accusations of self-dealing. I know a triumverate is unprecedented, but everything was unprecedented once. I hope this OK with everyone. Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IMO keeping things the way they are is the default value. You need to derive consensus to change. If this were an RfA, IMO it would not have achieved consensus to promote. As this is a recall RfA, IMO it again has not achieved conensus... which would mean things stay the way they are.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC) NOTE: this all boils down to, is this really an RfA or a Recall. How it is defined is key.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, that is entirely up to the three closing editors to decide for themselves. I know what I think, but I have no knowledge of or influence over the opinion of the other two. Herostratus (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I come to all this late in the day. But reading this, I am a little at a loss. As others have commented, this particular "RfA" sits uneasily in the process. In particular, it is difficult to see what action should follow from any potential outcome of the discussion. That said, I see no reason why a crat cannot close this discussion even though working out what should happen as a result may not be obvious. I would be happy to close the discussion and analyse the views raised in the discussion. What would happen after that would presumably be a matter for Herostratus (who can choose whether or not to resign) or ArbCom (who can choose whether or not to have Herostratus' tools removed). I think flexibility should be encouraged and I am sure - despite the confusion - that a sensible close can be achieved.
If this discussion is in fact to be closed by Herostratus and two others, I am unsure what this discussion is doing on an RfA subpage. It is not a request for adminship. If the idea wasn't to put it within the jurisdiction of the project's bureaucrats, then I not sure what this whole process was about... WJBscribe (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sits uneasily in the process" is quite an understatement. There are good reasons why a crat should not close this "RfA" (at least not as either "successful" or "unsuccessful"). The basic question of this RfA is ambigious and has been understood by its participants in widely different ways. Many of the support !voters understood the question as: to desysop or not. The wording in the nom "this is a recall RfA" is suggestive of such an interpretation. Many other !voters, particularly in the "oppose" column, understood the question as that of re-confirmation/re-sysopping, that is, they treated it as if it was a de novo RfA. This confusion about the underlying question being decided, which persisted through the entire RfA, is a significant problem in determining the consensus of the outcome. Moreover, there was a recent RfC, Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC, which, for better or worse, did not pass, and the CDA proposal is currently marked as failed. One of the reasons for this is that there was no agreement in the RfC as to how to evaluate consensus in prospective desysop/deadminship requests. I think that any attempt by a crat to interpret consensus on the desysopping question in Hero's "RfA" would be, in view of the outcome of that recent RfC, improper and exceeding the crats' mandate. In theory, a crat could treat this as a de novo RfA (where there are reasonably clear standards for evaluating consensus) for the purposes of determining its outcome. However, IMO, this would be improper as well since the RfA's main underlying question has remained unclear and ambiguous throughout its duration. In fact, I think that any closure by a crat (rather than a "no outcome" closure) would set an extremely problematic precedent, particularly in view of the CDA RfC outcome. On top of that, the "rules", such as they are, set by Hero for this RfA, changed several times while the RfA was running. First he disallowed participation by admins. Then he allowed it. First he wanted a crat to close the RfA. Then he wanted it to be closed by "three editors" (what the heck!??). Then he said (in this thread above) that he wants to close the RfA himself. And so on. This entire "thing", whatever it is, has been so erratic, irregular and out of process, that, IMO, any closure other than something like "clusterfuck" would be inappropriate. I think that maybe this would be something that Jimbo should close, as an exceptional out-of-process case. Nsk92 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe he made the change in closing method in part due to my comments above and below about what role bureaucrats should/may play in reconfirmation RFAs borne of recall petitions (he originally sought bureaucratic closure). If anything is clear, it's that there is nothing clear about how this process should work. –xeno^talk 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I for one would strongly welcome WJB's kind offer to close this (although against what criteria maybe another matter....). I have not yet commented on the RFA itself and am now (despite earlier comments on talk) ambivelant to be honest. WJB would, IMHO, be the best member of the 'crat team to close this (no offence to other bureaucrats, but many have been involved in this discussion now) if Herostratus decides not to close it himself - with the above mentioned advice from third parties; WJB closing it is a solution I personally see as preferable. Pedro :  Chat 

I think it would be both acceptable and desirable for one or more bureaucrats to close the discussion, even if it means acting in an unofficial capacity. Bureaucrats have closed reconfirmation RfAs before, and we trust them to be capable judges of consensus. As far as the closing criteria, the recall process which Herostratus chose at the outset says:

The standard for the RfA is the same as for any RfA - community consensus: if the user has consensus to remain an admin, the RfA is successful; if they lack such consensus, it is unsuccessful.

By respecting this standard and following the process to the end, Herostratus will have demonstrated integrity and accountability. Tim Smith (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As this request has been closed already (and blanked), I presume my input is not wanted. In the circumstances, I suggest the page be moved to userspace. WJBscribe (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there has only been one other recall petition that subsequently went to RFA (here), closed as "successful" by (now former) bureaucrat User:Nichalp. There was also LessHeard vanU's voluntary reconfirmation, closed as "successful" by bureaucrat User:Deskana.

Which brings us to the present case, above at #Herostratus' "recall" RfA. A lot messier than the two mentioned above, for a number of reasons. It is my opinion that bureaucrats should decline to participate in closing this request. Just as with the prior two, there is no definitive action that can be taken by the bureaucrat, nor have we granted mandate by the community to participate in ad-hoc recall processes in any official capacity.

My thoughts are that if a user wants bureaucrats to play a role in their recall, they should actually resign the rights prior to filing the RFA - at which point it will be a "true" RFA.

If consensus is found for this, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process (née 'Default process') should be updated as a result to discourage submitting recall RFAs while still holding administrative rights. –xeno^talk 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Xeno, and well-stated too. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: this particular case, I think crats don't need to completely decline; I think there is a reasonable (AND legitimate) way around it. Not commenting on anything else - community consensus can change policy/process/practice for future instances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree (and have argued all along) that the proper procedure would have been for Hero to resign the tools first and then to file a regular RfA requesting to be resysopped. That way the main question considered in the RfA would have been clear and it would have been clear how to determine consensus when closing the RfA. However, this still leaves us with the practical question of who is supposed to close the current Hero's "recall" RfA. It can't remain open indefinitely, can it? Nsk92 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hero can close it himself, no? -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not - admins who open themselves up to recall set their own rules. However, in my opinion, it doesn't belong at RFA; or at the very least, it should be made clear up-front that bureaucrats will not act on RFAs in an official capcity where the candidate already has administrative rights so the community knows at the outset that it isn't an RFA in the traditional sense. –xeno^talk 18:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, yes, this is a possibility, but I think it'd be pretty strange, particularly as a precedent, for him to close his own RfA. Plus he clearly stated in the self-nom statement that he wants a bureacrat to do it: "It is entirely in the hands of the closing bureaucrat whether he will use the same closing criteria as any other RfA or not." Nsk92 (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the point I've been trying to make is that bureaucrats are not obligated, nor do they have a community mandate, to participate in this process in an official capacity. To do so would be to pick up the notion of admin recall by its bootstraps. I suggest his request for bureaucratic intervention at the expiry of the RFA be denied. –xeno^talk 18:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said it elswhere, but i'll repeat it here. Not only can Herostratus close this, he is in fact the only one authorized to close it in a binding way. A crat could put a failed note on top, but even then it'd be up to Herostratus to decide if he's going to make the request for removal.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)(Nonbureaucrat comment) Guys, why the concern? The two other reconfirmation RFA's mentioned above had some process-related opposition in the discussion, but AFAIK their (at least semi-official) bureaucrat closures did not create much consternation around bureaucrat role creep. This one has had a bit of noise at the beginning around voting criteria, but HS has adjusted and clarified and asks it be run normally (or as normally as possible). I believe there is also precedent for consensus in various other unusual or contentious discussions to be judged (possibly in a private capacity) by a bureaucrat, just by virtue of their experience and trust vested in them to evaluate consensus. Now I could understand bureaucrats not wanting to get involved in an avalanche of frivolous and unnecessary reconfirmations, but I'm not getting why after the implicit precedent of two reconfirmations closed uncontroversially by bureaucrats this one is so much of an issue - or why we would insist that going forward admins must resign first and then reapply. Whichever way consensus falls in HS' case, I don't see anyone not wanting to respect it, so it seems the downside is low. Finally, as a larger and larger community it becomes harder to agree in the abstract on policies, so I'm sad when creative initiative that could be rather uncontroversial gets bogged down as "not covered by policy". Martinp (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  If a bureaucrat wants to get involved as a 'trusted editor who has been deemed by the community to be a decent judge of consensus', that's fine. But they should leave their bureaucrat hat on the rack and make it clear that they've done so - admin recall is not an official facility, and those who participate should not expect or receive official participation by bureaucrats. Jmho. –xeno^talk 18:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  (ec) Do you therefore also feel that Keilana's and LHvU's reconfirmation RFAs should not have been closed by bureaucrats, or with a disclaimer that they were not acting in a bureaucrat capacity? (Or, to avoid any sense of revisiting history, that cases like Keilana's, LhvU should be treated differently going forward than they were?) Martinp (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, no need to revisit history; I'm just trying to get a gut check on these things going-forward. They are rare, but it makes sense to make some indication as to whether bureaucrats may or will participate in these in an official capacity - so that individuals wishing to stand for reconfirmation are provided clear guidance. –xeno^talk 19:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already given my thoughts on this issue: WP:RFA is the wrong venue for this kind of thing; it belongs at WP:RFC/U, not here. WP:RECALL is not a policy or a guideline, and it should not be treated as one. This should also be noted in the section on the WP:ADMIN page so people don't get the idea that it is policy somehow just by being mentioned there. WP:RECALL is entirely about an editor's actions and conduct, and that's what WP:RFC/U is for, regardless of any additional bits the editor may have twiddled. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I will be willing to close it myself. Is this OK with you guys? Let me know and I will write a note to that affect on the RfA. However, what if it was close and I decided in favor of myself? Wouldn't that look bad? However, it doesn't look to be close so this is not an issue in this particular case.

I'm sorry if I made a mess of things. I was only trying to follow the procedure as I understood it. However: I also don't like the idea of resigning "under a cloud" just because six editors say so. It's partly the terminology -- "under a cloud". I don't mind at all doing it if the community in general says so. Maybe another term could be found. Also, if I resign, it impinges on my defense, as I then cannot read deleted material, which is germane to this situation. Again, sorry for the trouble. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please know that I respect that you are following through on your commitment to be open to recall. And I realize you have taken guidance from the default/sample process. And for all I know, there is a bureaucrat willing to close this RFA, hat on or otherwise: these musings above are largely my own - and I am the newest bureaucrat here. For what it's worth the "under a cloud" language has largely been deprecated and the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats page says that a resigned admin should be resysopped unless there is an indication that they have "resigned for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." As for your question: "Is it OK with you guys?" - it is my honest belief that bureaucrats have no mandate over admin recall or reconfirmation RFAs - so that is ultimately up to you. –xeno^talk 19:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you came around, I commend your decision and the way you've handled yourself, and I understand that it's very confusing and difficult to know what to do with so much going on at once. My personal preference would be that you not resign the tools at this time, for the simple reason that no one looking at that recall-RFA-thing could in good faith claim that that is anything like what normally happens at RFA; it's too many voices talking about too many different things at once, and not establishing consensus for any of it, and to use that as a guideline for any action would be unfair to you and the community. Give us some time to work through all the issues raised, and after that, I for one would be happy to look at the questions you want us to look at. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've created an alternative to the sample process, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Alternative process. Comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to say ick. I am a big fan of having a recall mechanism, but 20 folks wanting you out will remove most of our admin core. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Twenty does seem a bit low to me. There are 40 at the moment in the open recall RFA. I don't agree with "20 folks want you out will remove most of our admin core", but there's a distinct difference between voluntary and mandatory recalls in that I don't believe we can set some arbitrary number if recall is voluntary. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I continue to believe that recall is a bad idea and applaud the decision of other bureaucrats to avoid muddling the bureaucrat role through involvement in a process that lacks boundaries and consensus support. I note that, for administrators truly serious about continuing in their role only with community support, it is possible to resign their bit and then make a request for adminship. This makes it clear to both the bureaucrats and the community at large that a serious matter is under contemplation where standard procedures apply. It also eliminates an inevitable sideshow that accompanies every reconfirmation where the outcome is in doubt: the questions of whether the user pursuing such reconfirmation will make good on promises to resign their bit. Throughout the history of the project, many admins have pursued reconfirmation in exactly this fashion, and most (perhaps all) have enjoyed the ongoing support of the community.

Despite its many flaws, I believe that the arbitration committee has been effective in dealing with administrator misconduct, and consider this to be a sufficient safeguard with important benefits over an !vote. Others have enumerated the turnout-related problems unique to reconfirmation !votes, the lack of fair process, and the level of animosity many administrators garner from inexperienced users as a result of reasonable, appropriate, and necessary admin work.

As for recall itself, I believe that honorable administrators should know when to stop doing things that upset the community. Failing that, honorable administrators should know when to resign. Those who do not are unlikely to follow through on recall promises.

I realize that there are many principled supporters of community recall in one form or another. It is my belief that most of these users work in areas that do not lead to conflict. Some conflict is healthy, and administrators who are willing to work in inherently difficult areas and make necessary but unpopular decisions are an asset to the community. It is these administrators who understand the peril of the crowd.

Finally, I note that recall has never had consensus support, and all attempts at a !vote for adoption of any particular recall policy have failed to achieve consensus by wide margins. The supporters of recall provisions have made an end-run around consensus by making recall voluntary. In some cases there have been efforts to make recall rather less voluntary by encouraging prospective admins to be open to recall as a tacit condition of support at RFA. I don't think the community should tolerate this, and am pleased to see the recent clarification at WP:A of the status of recall as a non-binding non-policy from which any administrator can opt out at any time.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In this recall there is no evidence to support your fears. The perils of the crowd, utter nonsense. I trust the community, recall is rare and not entered into lightly, opt out or reject it and claim there is no support for recall but if issues are brought to the communities attention it matters not if you change your mind or claim there is no consensus support for recall, or even if you object to recall, if there is doubt to the quality of the administration then the community will comment on it, rejection of such feedback is detrimental to the authority it would attempt to protect.Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmation, I've compiled a list of RfAs where the candidate was already an administrator at the time of the RfA. The cases are varied and some were controversial, but those where reconfirmation was voluntary seem to bear out Deskana's assessment above, that "although recall RFAs draw some criticism, they are generally respected in some sense by the community (by allowing it to run its full duration, and treating the results as fairly binding)."

To me, it would be both acceptable and desirable for a bureaucrat to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2 as successful or unsuccessful, treating it as if he had resigned his bit and then reapplied. While bureaucrats currently do not have the technical ability to remove adminship, an RfC earlier this year showed about 70% support for granting them that power. Bureaucrats have closed reconfirmation RfAs before, and we trust them to be capable judges of consensus. Because such RfAs are unorthodox, the closer may not be acting in an official capacity. But to minimize drama, I think it still would be best for them to be a bureaucrat. Tim Smith (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem comes in with the question as to what is a reconfirmation RfA? If it is a true RfA, then clearly consensus has not been reached to promote. If it is a recall petition, then again consensus has not been achieved. The problem is, what are the standards/Guidelines? What does all of this mean? Which is why this is a poor forum for this. In most of the cases that I can recall where there have been reconfirmation RfA's, it has been more for vanity. This is the first one that I recall wherein the party was dragged into the process. So is the default to maintain the status quo, which is generally the way things work on Wikipedia? If so, then Hero remains an admin as there is no consensus to revoke his adminship. If the default is to remove the bit, then Hero steps down, as there is clearly no consensus to promote to adminship. The problem that Xeno, myself, and several other people have raised is that it is impossible to judge conensus against a criteria that has not been pre-defined or where there is no concept as to what is expected. This is a case that only Hero can close because there were no predefined expectations and no consensus as to what is going on.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Purely technically (ok, wikilawyering!), I'd say that no one has the authority to close this RfA. There is no process defined for recall that can be used to gauge consensus or to ask a crat to close it. The way the recall process seems to be defined (a voluntary process), I'd say that it is up to Hero to decide whether or not he/she has the mandate to continue as an admin or to use whatever process they feel appropriate to gauge whether or not the mandate exists (which, I notice, is what the admin is seeking to do anyway). --RegentsPark (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is why I have never supported this thing... even in the early stages when Hero was proposing it, I told him not to do so...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is a defined process in this case. From the outset, Herostratus agreed to use Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. That process specifies what standard is to be used to close the reconfirmation RfA. It says:

The standard for the RfA is the same as for any RfA - community consensus: if the user has consensus to remain an admin, the RfA is successful; if they lack such consensus, it is unsuccessful.

This process was created exactly so that for admins who choose it, there are pre-defined criteria and expectations. And Herostratus chose this process. By following it to the end, though it may mean the loss of his bit, he will have demonstrated integrity and accountability. Tim Smith (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Joe asked me if I'm still looking for a crat-chat on this (thanks Joe). The main thing that goes wrong when there's a big community discussion involving RFA where there are 10 undecided issues on the table at once is that some people walk away thinking "this will never work, no one ever listens" ... it's not a rational take-away, of course we won't fix 10 things at the same time by all talking at once, but there it is. Of course crats weren't elected to fix this specific problem, or to fix anything, really, but Wikipedia is an adhocracy ... titles don't mean anything, and therefore reputation is everything, and all the active crats have a high reputation, especially in RFA matters, so any of you guys could help with this problem, in whatever way you see fit, whether it's a crat-chat or editing policy and guidelines (as Joe has done ... again, thanks) or leading a community discussion on the various questions raised in this recall-RFA, to help the community get the hang of tackling one problem at a time. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nmcvocalist has undone the recent corrections to WP:ADMIN yet again, so I have protected the page to prevent this stupid edit warring. I should note that the version of the page which existed when I protected is not the version I prefer, but I refuse to engage in a stupid edit war with Nmcvocalist. He insists WP:RECALL is policy, yet it has never been policy and was only mentioned on WP:ADMIN for convenience sake, yet he insists it is policy. This is becoming really lame. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is one dispute - that is the one where neither you nor Spartaz made any attempt to seek consensus for your bold changes. There is another "dispute" - FT2 boldly attempted to copyedit the 3 processes down to a single line and I reverted on the grounds that some of FT2's changes caused necessary details to be omitted, and also contradicted what is written in RfC/U or ArbCom process. These are in no way connected. However, you used your tools on the basis that these disputes were connected. The first issue is that you knowingly used your tools inappropriately in a dispute in which you were involved - that is, your indirect invocation of IAR was totally inappropriate. There are severe problems with your judgement. As to why I put inverted commas around the FT2 dispute; if there is a content dispute, sure, FT2 and I have things to discuss - but I note that FT2 is ready to discuss his bold edits and question any reversions appropriately - that is, I've known him to be quite capable of taking care of himself because he's ready to discuss and resolve any issues in the wiki way. The second issue (therefore) revolves around the likelihood that there was no dispute between me or FT2 in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but your continued insistence that WP:RECALL is policy when it very clearly is not is completely unacceptable. You are trying to force it into being policy without following the very clear policies and guidelines outlining how something becomes policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See comment at User talk:Nihonjoe#Wikipedia:Administrators - no dispute that I can see or would classify, and others have said it all. Good faith mis-perception of editing history, most likely. Nobody owns project pages so others may completely equally disagree on wording or feel discussion is needed. Not commenting on wider issues as I'm unfamiliar and uninvolved with any. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for compiling this list. I'm sure the past examples will be useful for anyone who intends to close a reconfirmation RFA. –xeno^talk 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As recall is a completely voluntary choice, a user can ask for anyone (or no-one) to "close" these discussions (probably including reconfirmation RFAs if desired), and can also ignore them if they wish.

It means the person closing a voluntary request is not doing so in their formal capacity. A request for a crat or functionary as closer, speaks to the user's wish for a close by a kind of user he believes will do that task credibly, fairly, and honestly for him and for those with concerns, or will understand the criteria he wishes to be judged by, etc. The closer does a voluntary close in their capacity as a user whose character, know-how, and reputation is attested to by being a crat (or whatever the user's criteria are) and may even be asked to use the same criteria as at RFA, but is not doing so "as a crat". It's not an RFA. They are doing a user-to-user favor to the admin concerned, according to that admin's wishes.

I'm less sure as to resigning tools before a reconfirmation RFA, but then again I'm unsure what exactly is expected of a reconfirmation RFA. Two questions:

1. Does a request for a reconfirmation RFA mean a check via the same process that they haven't lost confidence? Or does it literally mean passing RFA at ~70 +/- % as for a new candidate?

2. Should reconfirmation RFA's be disallowed, in the sense of self-blocking being disallowed? After all, if an admin wants a check on his standing, they can RFC themselves and judge the result (or request a credible closer to judge it). See for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kirill Lokshin. That seems far more appropriate and less ambiguous, and they can voluntarily stand down if they believe the result requires it.

   (Ie, if they are not being required to step down by a formal desysopping process then any stepping down is voluntary. So a requirement to step down beforehand seems wrong, and a requirement to step down afterwards is a matter of personal decision (since it's all voluntary anyway). For example, they could ask the closer to advise if this would be a pass or fail at RFA, and commit to resign if it would be a fail, etc.)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To respond to the second question, no. Kirill's RfC/U had clearly failed the certification requirements (even with the other certifier) and would have traditionally been deleted. However, as Kirill elected this process, the community waived the convention on that occasion, in a similar way in which it allowed the unconventional RFA of Herostratus. That goes back to the point that the recall process is voluntary, and the process exists to help admins determine whether to resign or not, after seeing others input in a format that personally assists them in their decision (which means the format they voluntarily submit to). Of course, common sense would demand that the process isn't unreasonable, and that it was used in good faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)