Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brucejenner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Community_banning_proposal_of_Brucejenner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Forced_username_change

It was suggested to come to this board by an administrator. Consider the exceptional act of an involuntary name change of User:Bruce Jenner to User:BJenner Involuntary Username Change 01 July 2010. This person has just been community banned but it tarnishes the reputation of Olympic medalist, Bruce Jenner. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the best way but, as the Americans say "close enough for government work". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from voting against Herostratus in 'Herostratus 2', I have stayed away from commenting here due in part to the sour taste left in my mouth from my considerable participation in the events that led up to the (failed) Rfc for WP:CDA earlier this year. This current exercise raises more questions than it answers, as noted, but it is my view that:

• For what it is worth, Herostratus appears not to have the consensus in this !vote that it would take to pass an Rfa.

• This current process we see here, though crude, could possibly work as a simple way to obtain a view of communtity opinion on admins who are the subject of concerns.

• If this were to become a defacto CDA process, it would no doubt be the subject of numerous procedural questions and debates, which I currently have small interest in after my previously-mentioned experiences last winter with CDA.

I suspect the majority of those involved in this process quietly hope this oddball Rfa just goes away; I also suspect that that's what indeed will happen, as I see a discussion to close it. Arguments can be made either way as to how to interpret the results of this unusual !vote, and so the 'crats, as they would have in a hypothetical similar CDA action, have got an interesting set of choices, including the choice to do nothing. If nothing else, Herostratus' "Reverse Rfa" (if you will) has possibly shown how CDA might have worked, had it been enacted... warts and all. Jusdafax 07:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE - some interesting discussion, regarding the proper category to place the result of 'Herostratus 2' in, is to be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. [1] Jusdafax 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am a wikipedia user of a little over 5 years and a former admin on meta and en-wiki ~3 years ago and resigned due to taking a long wikibreak. My reasoning was that I didn't want some random user to find my page asking for help, only to not get a response (even with a disclaimer). If deemed reasonable I would like to be an administrator again.

Here's the edit where I asked for de-adminship voluntarily (no controversy involved) - [2].

Here's an little edit graph for wikipedia (english of course) [3].

Thank you for your time.

RN 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you made an effort to catch up on all the changes to policy (and indeed to the sysop bit itself) since 2006? Juliancolton (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-read the usual, such as Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators'_reading_list (inc. subpages), CSD policy, etc.. As for the sysop bit question, are you referring to the new umbrella of permissions administrators get now (AWB, etc.)? If not, then please do let me know, as I've read every page I could and don't see much referring to the bit itself.

Generally though, I don't use administrative tools unless I'm confident in my knowledge of the policy and use of the tool, and I think my log reflects that.

original RFA from years ago for reference.

Also, thank you very much for the response. If you have any other questions, please ask; if there is anything else I should know that I missed, please let me know, even if this request isn't granted. RN 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no issues which would prevent returning the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While Julian has a valid point asking RN to brush up on current policy, this shouldn't be a requirement for RN to regain their bit. After all, they should not be treated differently than any admin who was simply inactive for three years without resigning their bit. Regards SoWhy 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall this user, but I also agree with Joe and SoWhy. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but Julian makes a reasonable point- admins now have access to revdel, pending changes protection and the abuse filter, most, if not all of which, were unheard of when RN took their wikibreak. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• That adminship is for life is an organisational disgrace, so I think that Julian is perfectly entitled to ask the obvious questions. Not that it will make any difference of course. Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Give me a break. I see no one stating that Julian wasn't entitled to ask question. Those of us who commented simply stated we saw nothing which would prevent the bit from being returned. Please stop implying we meant anything more than that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I appreciate any questions, seriously - especially with the new tools admins get now I think discussions like this are a good thing. I do remember revdel (or at least a version of it) and have perused over the text of all the other powers; back then it was restricted to people with oversight (and stewards if I recall?). This new version seems different and I'm not 100% yet what the difference is between the admin version and the oversight version is (if any) yet even after several readings. Generally in a case like this if I still didn't fully understand it I would ask another administrator or similar about it, especially given its potential for abuse. I'm pretty familiar with pending changes protection and the page on that is pretty straightforward.

Again, if anyone has any hesistations, please spell it out and let me know; being an administrator without the confidence of someone is not something I desire. RN 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through your logs and I don't see anything concerning. That said, are you up on the WP:CSD as it is now? I notice several of the categories you used "back then" have since been moved/replaced and one or 2 new criteria have been brought in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The current revdel is the same (afaik) that oversighters have, although on a different level. It was enabled basically to make it unnecessary for admins to delete and selectively restore an article to remove one or more revisions. Oversight still exists as a way to remove such revisions from the sight of all users, including admins. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Totally agree with Malleous, the fact that admin status is allegedly for life is a disgrace and unsupportable as an authoritative claim. This returning user has been away longer than he was active and has no lifetime right to any authority here. Ask him to open a RFA and we can see if the community supports users having a lifetime authority here and if the community supports leavers returning after over three years and immediately having automatic authoritative tools here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You and Malleus may very well be right, but denying this user the return of the bit will do nothing to change the policy as you advocate. —DoRD (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not denying it is simply asking him to see if there is community support for his desire. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If RN had simply left or edited only a little during this time but kept the bit, we wouldn't be having this discussion as no abuse whatsoever of the bit has been presented here. If you want a policy change on inactive admins or such, propose a policy change, but this is not the time nor forum for that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ec addition to reply to User:Department of Redundancy Department..your comment is correct also, this case of a long term user returning like this may well be something to take to the community for feedback as per the automatic for life resopping guideline (please provide a link to this part of the policy/guideline please) if the returnee feels he has community support and opens an RFA we will get some feedback on that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ec reply to Rlevse, it is clearly the time to raise the issue, I strongly object to this returnee after such a long period of absence being automatically given administrative authority. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• While Malleus Fatuorum and Off2riorob may decry the "admin for life" culture that is a fact of life here, their objections are moot; the failure of the recent Rfc WP:CDA, which administrator votes helped deep-six, shows there is little hope of even modifying it soon. Term limits have also been rejected by the community as well, and I see little desire among Wikipedians to reopen that issue. I believe there is no precedent for a requirement that former admins must submit to another Rfa, and doing so now would open yet another can of worms. Given these facts, all any of us can do, regardless of what we might wish, is to put a good face on it - so, welcome back to adminship, RN. Jusdafax 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of personalized comment from Justafax that is actually disruptive, he simply objects to anything to do with me nothing actually to do with the issue under discussion at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Malleus and Randy are correct. This is not the correct forum, and inevitably someone will be along shortly to flip the bit back on, irrespective of anything - no offence at all to RN intended (I see no issue with the resysop FWIW). Rob - by arguing the toss over this you're simply adding to the big "WP:DEAL" thing over adminship. If admins are just people with a few buttons on a website that other people on the website don't have (which they are) then it should be "easy come, easy go". I understand concerns about legacy admins regaining the tools (I have in the past being very vocal against legacy admins and in particular bureaucrats) but I've changed my mind to think that if we really want to de-escalate the "them versus us" cancer spreading on WP betweeen admins and non admins then uncontroversial resysops may be a good place to start. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, after the Tbdsy fiasco, I think admins who have been away for a long time and want their bits back should at least be subjected to some scrutiny to make sure they're still up to the job (no offence to RN, who I believe is) since it's so damn hard to get rid of admins like Tbdsy who insist on disrupting the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, @Off2riorob) Sorry, but I have this page watchlisted and comment here often, for what it is worth. AGF, eh? Jusdafax 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Because he is still upset because I won a content dispute over a year ago to remove a POV comment from the lede of an article he has ownership issues with, Karl Rove and he repeatedly shows up everywhere and calls for my indefinite blocking from the site, I look forward to his request for extra buttons. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no written policy on this sort of thing. I was using the term more loosely before; something like "standard practice" would have been a better word choice in that posting. This is akin to the difference in common law (standard practice) and statutory law (written policy). Standard practice is what has evolved over time as what is accepted by the general community (obviously not every user, that'll never happen on something like adminship). A written policy will never get accepted in time for RN's case and as others have mentioned there has not been much community support for significant changes in that direction lately; but of course that does not mean someone can't try again. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly, Rlevse. Jusdafax 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've granted RD back the mop. bibliomaniac15 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be noted that there were objections to the process as claimed standard practice to automatically re-sopp returnees after three years or periods of such lengthly time. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)#

The system is corrupt, but very few seem to care. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you're seeking to change the system, you're in the wrong place. There's nothing the 'crats can do and, as Rlevse says, if he'd taken a 3-year wikibreak and not resigned the bit, he could pick up exactly where he left off with no 'crats involved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x2: Is this going to go anywhere? Resysop on request is policy unless the desysop was "under a cloud". The argument, if there is one, should not be here. It should be at an RFC on the policy, if anywhere; meanwhile, I don't see that the Crats can refuse a resysop request from a former Admin in good standing; this is becoming unproductive and the Crats are within their rights to resist criticism. This should not be here, because it is, as things stand ultra vires. Some realisation of that would be helpful.Rodhullandemu 22:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Great example of Hyperbole by Malleus. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobody has the right to "resist criticism". But when did turkeys ever vote for Thanksgiving? Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that there is such a "right" as you imply; but you appear to be deliberately ignoring the realities of the way we work. Options to meet your criticisms have been proposed, but ignoring them and labouring the point here doesn't appear to me to advance the argument. Rodhullandemu 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I am ignoring nothing. Unlike you, I recognise that the present system is corrupt. You, on the other hand, seem quite happy with the corruption. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • No, you imagine that the system is corrupt, without citing evidence for that contention. Had you said that the system is less than ideal, and bothered to raise an WP:RFC, your stance might have some validity; but thus far, this is just wind in sails, sound and fury, and meaningless. Money with mouth, please. Rodhullandemu 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
          • "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Why does the community so often complain when bureaucrats make the decisions they have been elected to make? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
            • What???? I'm an admin, and a very busy admin. As far as I'm concerned, you either shit or get off the pot. Start an RFC or STFU, please. Rodhullandemu 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Resop on request - Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As Biblio gave the mop back aobut 1.5 hours ago, pls take this argument to RFC or something. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. The crats operate within their parameters and cannot remake or unmake policy. As I see it, their functions involve considerably less discretion than is allowed to admins. However, if you don't like it, flag-waving here ain't the way to move forward. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Or just let's ignore the corruption, which is much easier. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? I say again, put up or shut up. Start an RFC, if you like, but if you're too much of a coward to rely on unsupported rhetoric, as opposed to evidence, then you don't merit any credence in this discussion. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Biblio, that was a very surprising decision on your part, considering the objections raised to summarily giving the sysop right back to RN. I don't believe in making things a bigger deal than they used to be, and I don't have anything personal against RN, but four years of minimal activity is a long time. If RN ran for RfA right now, do you think he would pass? I think the answer is clear, and that this particular course of action (reassigning the bit without much serious consideration) is inappropriate. Juliancolton (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there were objections to this action and no reason to act in any hurry, I also objected to the users administrative contribution. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not surprising at all. It's standard practice. As others have pointed out, you can bitch about current practice if you like, but this is not the place. Friday (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Current practice is for bureaucrats to carry out the community's wish, and to avoid independent decision making if there is any chance of controversy. This is not what occurred here. Juliancolton (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia weather, today and every day: cloudy with a chance of controversy. You cannot remotely be serious in what you're saying. Friday (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy is always a possibility, correct, but minimizing it is certainly an option. Please do not belittle my arguments by questioning my seriousness; if you have an actual counter-argument, feel free to present it. At the very least, it is more than clear that we need a definite policy on resysopping practices to avoid this debate rehashing itself so frequently. Juliancolton (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No reasonable person could possibly think that this debate will lead to any meaningful change in the existing policies. Therefore, I can only assume that this debate is continuing for drama's sake alone. Please - find the right forum and do what you can to change policy there. —DoRD (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Julian: the policy is definite and it is outlined at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Resysopping; if anyone feels this should be changed, a discussion or RFC at WT:BUR would be the next step. –xeno^talk 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That policy is really extremely vague. Juliancolton (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Did they resign under a cloud? (which IS defined, by the way) If yes, don't resysop. If no, resysop. There is a reason we're called bureaucrats. (X! · talk)  · @222  ·  04:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That logic rather suggests that administrators who resign in uncontroversial circumstances have the right to have the status restored at a later date. I don't think that's quite correct. Bureaucrats may enjoy (subject to community consensus still favouring this) a discretion to restore sysop rights without requiring a fresh RfA, but I don't think we must do so. I would hope, for example, that any bureaucrat who suspected that someone requesting the return of user rights would use them disruptively would refuse to restore them and require that a fresh RfA be passed. WJBscribe (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, when did it stop being a high crime to use the name "Randy" around here? Or has the RevDelete squad® simply not been informed yet? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I please have my admin status restored? – iridescent 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no issue here, ready to resysop in a few hours. MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There are absolutely no issues, as anyone around here knows. Heck, even the freak show of regulars at Wikipedia Review would probably vaguely welcome this particular resysop. What Iridescent's motivation behind this request is another debate however, but I smile and tip my hat at it.... Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support this restoration! :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the removal request? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request, removal. – iridescent 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Complex stuff clearly. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This was today? I guess you're having second thoughts. Restoration is okay with me. I know of no reason not to. Pedro-no reason for your sarcasm. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That was today?????????? EVERY reason for my sarcasm. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly a year ago Rlevse. Don't see any problems with the request. Prodego ^talk 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OH DOH on me. Me being dumb is not a justification for Pedro's comments, which he's partly stricken. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

iridescent eats puppies. She absolutely should not be re-sysopped. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedro mentions people from Boise (or wherever). He should be desysopped, hung, drawn .... etc. You get the idea. Iridescent gets back buttons on website is simple. The more pressing question is how do we get otters on the main page again? Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I had nothing against Iridescent's actions with they was an administrator and would be perfectly happy to see them back with the bit. However, if I remember correctly, Iridescent knew about User:Law being a banned user at the time of Law's RFA. By the time the ArbCom motions rolled around though, Iridescent had already given up the mop. While I disagreed with ArbCom's actions in that instance, Iridescent was essentially in the same boat as Jennavecia at the time. Does this affect anything? NW (Talk) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it ought to? Or are you just trolling, as I was accused of doing when I objected to the restoration of another administrator's bit a few days ago? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that Iridescent should be resysopped. I'm just commenting, as I did last October, about the inconsistency of ArbCom in this matter. If they really intended to be fair, they would prevent Iridescent from being resysopped or restore LaraLove's bit. But since when has ArbCom ever been consistent? NW (Talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally dream about Laralove's bits, but I guess that's a discussion for another place. FWIW, I agree with you NW. She was a good administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The details of Iridescent and Jenna in the Law matter are not the same. Afraid that's about all I can say on it in this forum. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued. Lara 03:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

While I hate to spoil a brewing drama, here are the opinions of the only two Arbcom members to express an opinion:[4][5]. – iridescent 23:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that I know of no public reason why they should not be resysopped and Rlevse is an arb who should reasonably know any private reason, I'm resysopping at this time. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So much for that 24 hour wait period, eh? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRAT#Resysopping doesn't say we have to wait 24 hours... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, I had planned to action this by midnight as well and concur with the result - there is no set wait period (#3). –xeno^talk 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's almost always a sign of a weak argument when someone goes pointing to a project-space page as justification for their actions (even more so when they're pointing at the absence of something). The real question isn't "why wait?", it's "what's the rush?" The virtue of a 24-hour wait period is discussed in the archives of this noticeboard. There seems to be some vehement opposition to it, though I can't for the life of me figure out why that is. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

MzM---"The virtue of a 24-hour wait period" has been discussed, but I can't remember the last time that the 'crats ever waited 24 hours. It was never put into effect and there have been several 'crats who explicitly stated that unless it is made official, that they would not feel bound by it. Thus, nobody actually waits 24 hours. I think what they've pretty much agreed to is no "instant" resysops like they used to do (eg 15 minutes after the request is made.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, did my comment above get missed? She eats puppies. PUPPIES! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not confuse her with Tarrare. Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you knew there was vehement opposition to the notion, why introduce it into the argument? Their dietary habits notwithstanding, iridescent is an excellent admin who, quite frankly (!), needs to get back to work after their extended leave. On a more general note: if every resysop request becomes an issue, we will surely see less admins giving up the tools when they decide they can be more useful without them... –xeno^talk 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the opposition comes from a handful of impatient bureaucrats and seemingly has no basis. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As you haven't made any specific objections regarding the request, am I understanding correctly that your concerns are strictly procedural? If so, I suggest you create a new section or RFC on the matter. –xeno^talk 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Resysopping is not a matter of consensus; therefore any illusory issue if "24 hour wait" is irrelevant. Issues only arise in "under a cloud" desysopping cases, and the criteria for resysopping are normally set out in the desysop decision. Those criteria should either be followed or referred to the desysopping authority for review. Simples. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[comments not relevant to current request removed]. –xeno^talk 13:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My sense here is that MZM sees a request for re-tooling as one of those "speak now or forever hold your peace" moments. Currently, the question in remoppification is whether they resigned under a cloud, and the two linked comments from Arbcom suggest sunny skies. I wouldn't object if someone wants to start an RFC on what re-sysopping should entail, but I would probably oppose changes, since I'm not aware that what we're doing now isn't working. I've vaguely supported a 24-hour waiting period in the past, but on this too, what we're doing seems to be working. If someone objects to a resysopping, we'll hear about it, before or after the fact. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I requested de-sysopping last year [6] for a temporary break, in the hope that it might give me the incentive to do more work on articles. Unfortunately, this didn't prove to be the case, and my "to-do" list remains just as full. I still intend to do article work in due course, but I feel I can help the project more as an administrator. I don't think I had any major problems during my previous spell as an admin, so I hope this won't prove controversial. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well I for one am pleased to see all the lapsed admins coming back for more of the same. I do wonder how many more of them are out there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• in case any of the crats have a problem looking for it Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks :-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Rename".

I am User:Betacommand, (you can check my status on commons where I was renamed), I am not going to go with the normal rename process due my high edit count and the issues involved with such a rename. (we normally have to get a developer involved in order to fix what ever breaks). I would like all the userrights removed from my old account to my new account. I waited to do the rename here on en.wp until I was no longer under any restrictions, in order to make the least hassle and drama, thanks. Δ (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

given the high edit count, I'm ok with this as long as the two userpages link to each other. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ive already redirected my old userpage. Δ (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course many will call you "delta" as they aren't familiar with entering special characters. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats to be expected since that is my username :) Δ (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you have not complied with Rlevse's restriction "as long as the two userpages link to each other" in this edit to this page, in which you were instructed to have your new userpage link to your old userpage, which you have not yet done, so I'm not disposed to welcome you back just yet.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on one's definition of linked. The problem with the redirects is someone not familiar with Delta's history won't know Delta is AKA Betacommand. So for me something like "I was formerly..." and "I am now ..." is in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would consider redirects as linked as you can get. The I was formerly... and I am now ... I find cheesy and tacky. They are not required by policy so I'm not planning on doing something like that. I am not attempting to hide anything. If anyone has questions of who I am they can check what links here, or take a look at my first edits. Δ (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for clarifying your positions.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Then use something like Jack Merridew has at the top of his user page. Without a rename or user page link, there's nothing linking the accounts other than this thread which will be buried deep in page history soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I was fiddling with that stuff earlier today (had not seen this thread). I'm thinking you mean the sock icon next to my user name; this thing got wonky with the deployment of vector due to the addition of a new level of containing block in the page structure (means they added position:relative to a deeper div; huh?: they messed with stuff). I've changed things to all work within yet another positioning context that I setup. I'm sure Deltacommand can pick it apart as desired. Prolly using some sort of delta-icon, or one for renames. nb: I hates user box templates, and they should never be required for such circumstances. Or the drop-menus I've restored? ;) I nicked those off User:Hersfold sometime last year. They had vector issues, too; much as above and due to the messing that keeps occurring with the topicon class; fixed similarly, today, and I added z-index, which is fairly specific to my user page mechanism. Cheers all, Jack Merridew 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{User previous acct}} also exists for this purpose, it would also help in heading off any concerns raised that you've renamed to avoid scrutiny. –xeno^talk 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Would such a template be OK on Δ's talkpage? Reason I ask is, I'm seeing the pristine red of Δ's userpage, and I'm wondering if the stumbling block is a desire to maintain a red userpage. TFOWR 16:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. –xeno^talk 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Prev acct template on the talkpage only is okay with me. It should of course permanently be at the top. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like X! to explain this since discussion is ongoing here and he didn't bother to let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called "I didn't see the thread before he pinged me on IRC asking for me to do it". Am I expected to watch BN like a hawk every waking moment? Especially when I was busy doing other stuff? I didn't think so. A simple "{{done}} by X! ~~~~" would be easier. (X! · talk)  · @975  ·  22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So BC starts the thread, some responses are made and many hours later he contacts you to get it done while discussion is ongoing here? Now I'm going to ask BC/Delta to explain this. At a minimum it's forum shopping. I don't expect you to watch BN every second but I do expect BC to know better. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is how I see it, 1. Renames with extremely high editcounts normally require devs to fix. 2. My userrights on my old account where in good standing. 3. There have been no issues with my new name 4. When a user renames their user rights get transferred to their new name 5. According to that logic (which everyone agrees to) my user rights should be transferred. 6. You are trying to hold something over my head has leverage to force me to do something that I would rather not. 7. I am under no restrictions and am in good standing with the community so the attempted withholding of my userrights as a form of persuasion to force me to add some stupid template or configure my sig to some silly thing saying Formerly user xxx is just cretinous. Since the only thing holding the issue back here is how I link to to my old username (Ive already redirected the pages to my talk) you have no ground for withholding my valid user rights.

upon those grounds I ask an un-involved crat to move my user rights, since because it seems your history with me prevented you from taking a objective stance with regard to my request. Δ (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your third point isn't strictly true. When you asked to be renamed to ∆, the request was denied by several bureaucrats [7]. Some of the concerns raised in that thread could apply equally to transferring rights to Δ and I think it should have been drawn to everyone's attention here. WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Following up this comment by WJBscribe, where was the "SUL unification request" referred to by Deskana made? –xeno^talk 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He asked me on IRC. I can't remember much about the conversation and I don't keep logs. Perhaps Betacommand has some. --Deskana (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but are usurp requests regularly handled in this manner? Betacommand, is there a particular reason you chose to initiate this request via IRC rather than the the usual fashion? –xeno^talk 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen requests on IRC before, and I wanted to wait until my restrictions expired on enwp before changing names here. I had already been renamed across the other WMF wikis, and just wanted to get as much cleaned up as I could before actually changing nicks. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they're not normally handled on IRC but there's no restriction against it. I'd like Betacommand to make any logs he has of our chat available to me. My memory is extremely hazy, but I seem to recall that I asked Betacommand to make the request publicly but he said he wouldn't, and made some comment about wanting to avoid drama. I'd forgotten about the previous rename request since it was just over three years ago and I had minimal involvement other than saying "too many people said no, sorry". --Deskana (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand informs me that he doesn't keep logs of his private messages on IRC, so it looks like my hazy recollection will have to do. --Deskana (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@Betacommand, you've stated a few times you are under no restrictions, however WP:RESTRICT has a section listed for User:Betacommand with an expiry time of 'indefinite'. Has this been vacated? –xeno^talk 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure why that was placed there as those are not actual editing restrictions. Rather the conclusion of an arbcom case. Other than stressing that I follow standard policies, with that case there where no specific editing restrictions put into place. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that at the time of my previous request that the username policy frowned upon non-Latin usernames, this has since changed. Δ (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obfuscation isn't going to help you. You had a rename to delta denied, you come here to ask for something, the discussion was ongoing, no one said no, and you went behind our backs to get what you wanted. Now if you'd told X! about this thread it'd be different, but you didn't. This is sneaky, underhanded, and forum shopping. I was not the only one with the same concerns so don't try to single me out. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not Obfuscation, its the facts. You are the only one wanting me to "Link" my old and new names. I am considering this closed and am moving on to more productive actions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reread the thread, I'm not the only one. And some of the arbs have told me they agree with me. But not to worry, you're already displaying the same attitudes that got you in trouble before and will do so again and you'll do it all on your own. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the list of users requesting such a link. I'm unable to think of a valid reason for its omission.

Indeed, Betacommand/Δ engaged in dishonest forum shopping when he didn't receive the response that he wanted. And yes, he's displaying precisely the same attitude that led to the past problems ("I'm right and the rest of you are wrong, so I shall ignore you and go about my business."). —David Levy 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking the pages should have already been done. BC/D is clearly ignoring all this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is the same unsatisfactory communication that contributed to his desysopping per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand and his editing restrictions and many blocks per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, as well as to at least three warnings since his return (he was also warned for edit warring twice and vandalism once).   — Jeff G. ツ 07:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled. When I click on the userpage, I get an entirely blank space. (Glad someone explained it's called "Delta". I'd call it "pointy triangle", but then I am a barbarian. Literally a barbarian, as it happens. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend Waiting for the Barbarians. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone may wish to talk to BAG about this situation, since his bot has been given approval for a trial Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Δbot. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 10:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done with this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What's now an issue to me is that neither the delta userpage nor talkpage has information about the previous username. I say we should require BOTH. Andrevan@ 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a policy that states that I must have a stupid template, Im not going to have one. (No such policy exists) So lets just move on and do something productive. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Andrevan. Having been familiar with old admin usernames that have disappeared with a rename, and being unable to easily find the RFA page of renamed admins, I find this irritation, and to be a side-step to normal admin accountability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this had anything to do with "normal admin accountability" since Delta isn't an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was sure that I remembered that he was (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Betacommand). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that he isn't currently and hasn't been for over 3 years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I know. I had immediately worked out my false assumption. I didn't know that he wasn't still an administrator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm always wary when I see "Unless you have a policy that states that I must have...". This is a collaborative project, and people are suggesting (and I agree) that the accounts should be clearly linked with a statement of some type that explains the connection. It maybe that delta doesn't see the need for that, but many of his fellow editors on this collaborative project do. Now, is there a valid reason to refuse? Because if there's not, I think these user-rights should be removed. Obfuscation and awkwardness are not an encouraging (re-)start here, and this use has form for being uncooperative. --Scott Mac 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see that BC is now attempting to remove the tag on their userpage linking the accounts. I feel that they are getting pretty disruptive now and I'm very unimpressed by the refusal to heed consensus. Can anyone remind me what he offers to the project to justify this level of disruption? Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • • Hmmm [8]. Not very helpful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Your edits are against policy and disruptive also, I have created User talk:Δ/top and thats all the further Im going to go. so please stop harassing me and lets move on to something actually productive. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
        • That appears to be a personal attack.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
          • It does? How? Aiken ♫ 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
            • It appears to be an unfounded accusation of harassment.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Be that as it may or may not, as far as I can tell, you, Jeff, have yet to make a useful comment in this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 is scheduled to end about half an hour from the time of posting. I know this isn't the way things normally work, but I would like to request that a "'crat chat" be opened, given that this is right in the middle of what is considered the discretionary area. I ask mainly because I would be interested to read different 'crats' analyses of the arguments put forward I both the support and oppose columns, but also because it's been a while, if I recall, since we've had an RfA quite as close as this seems and to give Connormah something to take on board for either adminship or a potential future RfA. Disclosure: since I'm the nominator, I obviously have a conflict of interest, but this request isn't motivated by a desire to skew whatever the result may be. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's too late now but I'd also be interested in a little crat chat. AD's close mentions opposes concerned with the candidate's understanding of CSD but as far as I can read, this wasn't brought up. Pichpich (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry – I didn't see this thread before I closed the RfA. The RfA was indeed borderline, and I took considerable deliberation in making my decision. My suggestion to Pichpich is that he read the oppose section more closely. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to quote BLOCK and not CSD because I don't see significant concerns raised about his grasp of CSD. What did I miss? Pichpich (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see anything regarding CSD. Furthermore, I have no interest in CSD, and the BLOCK concerns (from what I can tell) were based on a typo, so I'm not sure. Connormah^talk 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Fetchcomms' oppose and the reaction to the answer to question 8. I see that the problem could be viewed as a miscomprehension of BLOCK, but it's really neither here nor there. That Connormah's advised course of action was deemed unsatisfactory is what mattered. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was a very well thought out and, no doubt, long deliberated over close and the result, while I don't agree with it, was in line with the consensus or lack thereof. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully it'll go better next time after I've fixed some things here and there. Connormah^talk 15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The two-cent advice I offered this morning to Connormah is to look over what people wanted (supporters and opposers alike), and then get talkative and specific about what he has no interest in, to give voters a chance to say "sure, that's okay" or "no, I really want you to demonstrate that you can do X". No animals were harmed in the making of this RfA, and I think he'll do fine next time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the close decision made by Anonymous Dissident. It's how I would have closed it as well. FWIW. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A good close, and what I would have done. (X! · talk)  · @233  ·  04:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. Cheers, and thanks. Connormah^talk 17:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Late concurrence with the propriety of the process. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fox (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I stood down from my admin status a few months ago at the Stewards page (no cloud or anything) and X! told me he couldn't do it on an IRC request, and that I had to post here. So... here I am.  f o x  15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any reason why this request should not be granted. –xeno^talk 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Me either, but please post a diff of the request so we can check. Andrevan@ 16:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's in the globalrights log linked above, but: [9]. –xeno^talk 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What Foks forgot to mention was that I didn't find anything wrong and supported the resysopping, but that it should be brought to BN just in case. (X! · talk)  · @793  ·  18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Figured that was evident, but alright.  f o x  18:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to deny this request. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-granted based on the uncontroversial removal and the lack of disapproval from some other crats. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers.  f o x  08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a problem, but perhaps for house-keeping purposes, there appears to be two non-bureaucrats in that category. I'm at work, so I haven't looked into it completely, there may be a name change or something that I'm not yet aware of, but I didn't see anything in my glancing through the logs. We've got Limited2fan (who, in fact, claims to have become a bureaucrat July 29th of this year) , and Theory2reality. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so upon further inspection, it appears Limited2fan took his userpage from Rlevse. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I've attributed the source of page and removed the erroneous categories [10]. Looks like Tim Song took care of the other one [and actually reverted the Limited2fan page further; to take care of the misleading text], and I've just fixed X!'s page so his sock doesn't appear in the category. –xeno^talk 16:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting it, sharp eye. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I promised I would resign if I felt I wasn't meeting my own personal standards for adminship and undo the mistakes I made. As I promised, I have. Very sorry for wasting the time of everyone here. I will run through WP:RFA if I wish to become an admin again. Hopefully I came across as a professional as possible during my time as an admin. Thank you. (RN btw, namechange that wasn't possible 4 years ago) Ryan Norton 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Added Ryan to Wikipedia:Former administrators . Tiptoety ^talk 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got a quick question regarding an area I seem to recall comes under bureaucrat discretion: the revealing of past history on a different registered or IP accounts for those requesting adminship or an otherwise sensitive area of community trust. Is in fact this an area of 'crat responsibility? I remember a case or two in the past year where a candidate wanted to keep the information away from the wider public for personal reasons; it was therefore reviewed by (I think) a bureaucrat to look for any issues that would be a problem, but I would like confirmation that this is so. This is a result of ongoing discussion regarding a proposed fourth question for Rfa candidates at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, where I would welcome your thoughts as well. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Jusdafax 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it has been done before. I can't think of one immediately off-hand, but there have been RFAs in which the candidate revealed a previous account to a bureaucrat who then posted something to the effect of "I checked the contribs of the alternate account and found them to be satisfactory." 174.52.141.138 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The last time it was a big deal (two people did this review, neither of them crats, lots of drama) was Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/A_new_name_2008. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a vague impression that there may have been one-two other cases of this type, but I may be mistaken. Looking at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/A_new_name_2008, I find it ironic that the person to whom that candidate initially chose to disclose their prior account was User:Pastor Theo, who, as it came out during the RfA, was himself a sockpuppet of a previously banned user and who himself obtained adminship while concealing the existence of a prior account. Regarding the original question, I do not believe it has ever been an accepted part of the 'crat's responsibility to do 'in camera' review of prior but not public accounts of an RfA candidate. I doubt very much that there would be community consensus for giving bureaucrats such a role as a part of their official tasks. Nsk92 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I find it interesting, I don't feel able to comment on this. I'm more of a checkuser than I am a bureaucrat, and I don't want to get those two quite separate things mixed up again. --Deskana (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#How_strong_is_the_duty_to_disclose_old_account_in_an_RfA.3F. I also find this interesting. What are the respective roles of checkuser, arbiter, and bureaucrat in the case of an RFA where the nominee has an historic alternative account with a significant privacy concern. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the role has not been a strict "bureaucrat" role, but one that falls under their status as a trusted user. It also has links, I believe, to their ability to close an RFA by themselves. When it comes to IP handling and alternate accounts, though, I think it's best left to a checkuser, even if it does affect an RFA. bibliomaniac15 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've long held the position that we should run a CU on every single admin candidate, but consensus has also long held the position that a CU is meaningless because of it's inconclusive nature... which of course begs the question, why do we have a CU process in the first place. Honestly, I do believe that this idea never gets any traction because socking is so widespread amongst the user base, admin or otherwise. Fact is, we have a flawed structure that cannot be reasonably policed without burning half of the dedicated users. Outside of admin socks, you also have nitwits like the admin who turned out to be on the Eastern European mailing list a while back, working in cahoots off-site to give the appearance of acting as a neutral admin onsite. But I digress, as such musings merely lead to endless babbling on why Wikipedia will never be a respectable source of knowledge. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I could go for this. As I understand it the main argument against is that we don't store the data for long enough to detect that candidate x was problem user y 12 months ago. But storage is cheap, we could invest in the technology and hardware to make our CU process far more effective. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just over a month ago, a sudden change of circumstances forced me to resign all activity on this site. Luckily those circumstances have unexpectedly rectified themselves, so I will be able to continue editing. While I can't expect to meet my previous activity, I will still be able to help out in my old areas. Diff of removal request and log action. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally support this. The only reason I'm not doing it now is I'm the first to respond. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes! Give him his bit back already, the skies look clear to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds all kosher to me too, and glad to have you back on board Peter :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Rlevse • Talk • 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. :-) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Killiondude (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I requested my bit be removed back in May (no cloud surrounding it). It'd be nice to help out a little bit with the bit, I figured (so many bits!). I'd like +sysop back. Killiondude (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Diff in the meta rights log is wrong; request was here. This request seems straigtforward, I know of no reason as to why it should not be granted. –xeno^talk 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew, et al. Killiondude (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created this template to simplify getting the closing format of RFAs correct and modified the advice accordingly. What does the community think? Set Sail For The Seven Seas 335° 11' 30" NET 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll end up spending as much time trying to remember which parameter goes where as I would actually doing it normally. --Deskana (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What would really help is if X! or someone else who is equally clever made a counter that worked 100% of the time that made it unnecessary for the tally to be entered manually at all. In the absence of that, this ain't a bad template. I've not closed many RfAs since my RfB, but doing so is a pretty tedious manual task - just look at the instructions at WP:BUREAUCRAT. Anything that automates any of those steps is welcome. I'm sure some of the steps could be done by a Bot or script... I say "I'm sure" from the comfortable position of being a technical ignoramus. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If the bot starts adding safesubst support to the tally (thusly), then {{rfatally}} can simply be substed rather than entered by hand. –xeno^talk 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I always do enjoy a good use of the word 'thusly'. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did at one point write a script that would generate the closed RfA text with given parameters, but I dropped the project after trying to get it to add it to the archive (which really needs reworking, by the way). (X! · talk)  · @711  ·  16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we review the bureaucrat removal proposal. Currently, there are a large number of bureaucrats who no longer (and, in one case, never have) partake in bureaucratic functions. There are good reasons to clip the ranks, now and in the future:

1. Wikipedia is always changing. In particular, the atmosphere at RfA has changed significantly over the past few years. Users disconnected from the project for long periods are inevitably out of tune with current practice; and this is especially problematic for bureaucrats, who are expected to be capable judges of consensus and informed decision-makers.
2. Highly inactive bureaucrats impair the effectiveness of the collective, since they are unable to offer assistance to users who might ask and are rarely contactable.
3. The removal process would be simple and wouldn't be time-consuming, given the relatively small number of bureaucrats.
4. It's good practice – I for one am a strong believer that administrative positions, whatever their form, should never be for life.

This hasn't been discussed for over a year, if I'm not mistaken, and I think it's time we looked at the idea again. Importantly, it seemed a significant number of users were in favour last year, and that the proposal's rejection might have been a tad premature. All input is appreciated. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This will bring up several threads at once, but personally, I'd prefer to focus on one question at a time; I trust the community when we have a bunch of people thinking about one question and bouncing ideas off each other for several days; not so much when we're scattered. Do you have any evidence that anyone has been harmed by either the unavailability or cluelessness of some crats? (And if you do but you don't want to give details, that's fine, at least share what conclusions you reached.) If you don't have evidence, will it hurt to put this question off, or are you concerned that harm is being done that we don't know about? - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of any event to which we can point and cry "A policy on bureaucrat removal would have come in handy just there." But I feel that my argument makes sense, and that there are benefits to be derived from implementing the proposal. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk

What benefits? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Point 1 is the salient concern. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any recent example where this has been a problem? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not of which I am aware. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Then its hard to escape the view that this is a solution in search of a problem and unnecessary process creep... Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always been averse to the notion of a solution in search of a problem. It ignores future possibilities for no good reason. Does the proposal sound like it will do damage? Not that I can see. Is there potential for it to come in use? Certainly. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a complete hypothetical, "what if" argument... What if Jimbo went mad, letsdeopphim in case unless he provides a certificate from a shrink... Obviously this is a more extreme example but its the same principle. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Taking away Jimbo's functions without good reason would obviously do damage to the project. You've not yet made the suggestion that this proposal has that potential. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)So this solves what? Having inactive 'crats doesn't impair the active ones from acting so this seems like more process for the sake of it. Oppose Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think AD's suggestion is in principle a good idea. It makes sense. It sounds in principle to be better practice. I would suggest:

1. Instead of proposing technical de-bureaucration, divide the group of bureaucrats into active and inactive. (Jimbo's point about misuse of such processes for silly power games is valid. Inactive bureaucrats returning to activity with ineptness can be dealt with separately)

2. Broaden significantly Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_removal#Qualifying_actions "Participating in a bureaucrat discussion" beyond Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion to include any participation in any discussion relevent to bureaucrats. (General activities matters more than specific measures; a bureaucrat could we be significantly involved in decisions without actually performing the actions personally)

3. Resurrect Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal (currently {{failed}}), and copy this section to its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I repeat the question. What actual problem will this solve? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think (you may disagree) that you are being too conservative on the progressivism versus conservatism dynamic. I think that AD is suggesting sound continuous improvement, and I think continuous improvement is important for the project to remain flexible. Cutting away some dead wood is a good thing, even without demonstrated evidence that this dead wood is an actual and current problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And I think you are plain wromg about this and completely misjudging what the project needs but I wasn't the first one to personalise this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't mean any personal attack. I think that recognising differing philosophies is useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not that we're voting but very strongly support. Bureaucrat on English Wikipedia is, I think, the most difficult right to obtain on any project. Harder than a steward, harder than an arbitrator... therefore, I think such rights obtained ought to be used. I feel the same about administrators and every other elected position. To those complaining this is a solution in search of a problem... I don't agree at all. The problem is the inactivity. And besides, what's the harm in trying something out? None at all. Many other projects do this as standard, and it's quick and easy. Aiken ♫ 14:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can somebody list the inactive bureaucrats, just to see how many there actually are? Thanks. Aiken ♫ 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  This used to be tracked [11], but it was eliminated for a lack of accuracy and regular updates. –xeno^talk 14:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  If "inactive crat" means those who haven't used the crat tools in 3 months: Andrevan, Angela, Bcorr, Brion VIBBOR, Cecropia, Cimon Avaro, Cprompt, Illyanep, Infrogmation, Jwrosenzweig, Kingturtle, Linuxbeak, Pakaran, Raul654, Rdsmith4, Redux, Secretlondon, Stan Shebs, TUF-KAT, Taxman, and Tim Starling. 21 out of 36. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  Andrevan has participated in BN discussions recently; I wouldn't consider them inactive [without comment on the merits of the proposal]. –xeno^talk 16:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  I am active. Andrevan@ 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Pakaran recently said on IRC that he wanted to be active again. (X! · talk)  · @785  ·  17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• There was in fact an incident revolving around an inactive bureaucrat making an RfA closure a few months ago - remember Polargeo's RfA? Cimon Avaro (talk · contribs) has not been editing with any real regularity for some time, but ended up unintentionally causing a bit of a storm-in-a-teacup and associated edit war, over slightly misinterpreting the intent of a joke oppose vote. It was no big deal in the end, but it did concern me a little at the time, particularly the fact that he didn't edit to clear anything up for two days afterwards. It kind of demonstrates that with the best will in the world, inactive bureaucrats can easily misinterpret something. Just for the sake of keeping the bureaucrat group tidy and in-touch, I think removal of ones that haven't touched the tools in a while is a good thing. ~ mazca ^talk 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• I don't mind discussing the issue. I tend to not close RfAs mostly because others already have. Occasionally I'll come upon one where it's time to close it and no one else has done so, but since there are a fair number of us that tends to not happen all that often. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  What he said. --Dweller (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the current bureaucrats haven't edited in the last three months: Linuxbeak, Redux, and TUF-KAT. So, 21 of 36 current bureaucrats haven't done a crat action in the last three months and three of the 21 haven't edited. I wouldn't be opposed to breaking down the table at WP:CRAT into "active" and "inactive" based on some agreed upon criteria. Or if not creating a second table, putting in a column into the current table indicating activity. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This was removed in April as it was not being maintained. If someone is willing to write a bot or personally maintain the list, then have at it. –xeno^talk 22:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I thought I remembered there being a column for that back in the day. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think three months is way too short to be considered inactive. Three months is just a long service leave holiday. Two years would be more reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am active as well - I just don't do as much bureaucrat stuff these days. Raul654 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am somewhat active, just not as a bureaucrat; CHU is usually clear when I swing thru to check it on occasion, and I'm honestly a little burnt out with the pettiness of Wikipedia at times to do much more than wikignome work these days (which is what I originally came to Wikipedia to do in the first place anyway). That said, I support the idea of retiring inactive bureaucrats, for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because 'crats are supposed to represent the trust of the community, and one who has been out of the community for an extended period of time doesn't necessarily still hold that trust (which isn't a reflection on them personally at all, just that they aren't "in tune" with everyone else). I'd like to see 'crats get stripped of their bits after a while, but "automatically" regranted (after a request here) them after they've shown a couple of months of consistent editing and community involvement again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I regularly check this board, the RfAs and the CHUs. Because of my schedule, I am only checking once a day. Any necessary bureaucratic actions are already completed by my fellow crats, because of their efficiency. I am up-to-date on procedures, events, and disputes. Kingturtle (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• A volunteer who keeps abreast of the tasks he helps with is more than active "enough"(?), and should not have to explain himself. Even more so for a highly valued volunteer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, well that's exactly what this proposal requires. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, "perform at least one action associated with the bureaucrat usergroup" Is very clear, merely being "up-to-date on procedures, events, and disputes" and taking part in crat chats would not be sufficient to remain a crat. One would also have to be the crat who handed out the mop, or did a rename. I suspect that the Bureaucrat removal proposal would be less contentious if it was revised to include keeping crats who are otherwise active, especially if they participate in crat chats. ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The stark fallacy here being that it is just as important for Crats to decide not to perform a bureaucrat action, as it is to actively perform one. Only the latter shows in logs. The countless username changes I've declined, for example. --Dweller (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And the edit to WP:CHU, marking the request not done, would count as a bureaucrat action. It's not a logged action, but an action nonetheless. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. See WP:Bureaucrat removal#Qualifying actions. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I check BN multiple times daily, and from the noticeboard, branch out to whatever is necessary. Most of the time, my fellow crats are so quick that my sole contributions are at CHUU, which is great, as that means that we are working efficiently. That does not mean I am inactive :) -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Shall we have an informal straw poll to succinctly gather where everyone's thoughts lie? Do you support or oppose the removal of bureaucrat tools from inactive bureaucrats if the criteria for "inactive" is correctly defined in your own mind?. The criteria can be hammered out later. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Voting over undefined criteria is especially evil. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If the community wants to remove inactive bureaucrats, it should be discussed at WT:Bureaucrat removal perhaps informally to develop criteria, and then in an RFC form - properly publicized. –xeno^talk 13:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to determine consensus for the concept first. If such a consensus exists, we can decide on numerical thresholds later. I'll create a request for comment on the talk page of WT:Bureaucrat removal in the coming days. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated statistics

Updated statistics on bureaucrat activity are available at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_removal#Current_activity. Skomorokh 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

See here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A discussion about possible probationary sysops is occurring at RfA Talk. One of the proposals includes having 'crats appoint probationary sysops. I personally like the idea, but it has been properly noted that we shouldn't pendspend too much time on the proposals if it is wouldn't be considered by 'crats. I think the idea has some merit, needs substantial tweaking, but wanted to make you aware of the discussion.--SPhilbrickT 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If consensus is found for the new process, I don't think bureaucrats will stand in the way of change. –xeno^talk 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Xeno on this one. If the proposal gained consensus for implementation, we'd probably have some bureaucrats decline to participate, but I don't think any real pushback would happen. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of you - but the notification is helpful, as bureaucrats can be expected to have strong opinions on the way RfA works, even if our opinions shouldn't necessarily carry more weight than those of any other users. --Dweller (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If I could make these required reading for crats, I would: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats and Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats; and yes, also posting at WT:RFA — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Rlevse. Kingturtle (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. me thinks you mean WT:RFA.

I just looked at Wikipedia:Admin coaching and my jaw is still on the floor. It seems to me that those meeting the "Typical experience level for starting Admin Coaching" should (absent some evidence of misconduct) be passing RfA, not scraping the requirement for coaching. The "Perceptions at RfA" section of that page is truly tragic. Apparently, an editor should now have been active on the project for 12 months before they run at RfA (I had less than that when I passed RfB!) and have made to 8 - 12,000 edits (double if a vandal fighter). I truly hope those running the coaching programme are overestimating the standards now required. WJBscribe (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I became an admin after being here for about 7 months. RFB took a little longer, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

7 months for me too. 22 months for crat, though. :) (X! · talk)  · @784  ·  17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Last month we had a candidate pass with over 90%, and the opposes were mainly about grammar, attitude to the word wannabe and in particular that over 75% of his edits were in mainspace. Nobody expressed concern that he "only" had 6,000 edits. RFA isn't easy, but I fear some people's perception's of it are far worse than it is. though less than a year or less than 4,000 edits and sadly I don't fancy your chances. ϢereSpielChequers 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just made some changes to that page, but I feel that I probably did not go far enough. Those numbers don't sound accurate at all, and if they are, they shouldn't be. NW (Talk) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WJB what are you talking about? The page that you are linking to does not make any statement about 12 months (except for people "who is habitually or grossly uncivil or has been blocked.") The note on tenure indicates 5 months with 6-7 months being the typical minimum tenure on WP to pass an RfA. It also says 3000 edits, "Successful candidates at RfA usually have over 4,000 manual edits or equivalent (automated edits are typically valued less at RFA as many more can be done in an hour)." But in reality, it doesn't really matter. I just checked the history of the page, and the last two edits were when Enigma marked it inactive and Biblio marked it active a year and a half ago. Coaching is essentially dead. Wikipedia doesn't value attempts to help others learn the ropes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Balloonman, you might have missed the changes that I (and then WSC) made to the page; see the diff right above your post. NW (Talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

{comment}I had written a comment, then realized what happened, and tried to edit my original comment, but that created a mess, so I'm replacing it here.{end comment}Actually, following your link I found a second page that WJB must have been looking at. Looks like the main page hasn't been edited since March 08, but that the /guideline page was updated unilaterally by User:Fastilysock last November.

Fastily's edits were undone a few times, but he reverted them claiming the original numbers were outdated. In reality, they were kept deliberately low as to be high enough to be meaningful, but low enough that individual coaches had freedom to select candidates with varying amounts of experience. For example, the original number called for 3 months of editing and 1750 edits before becoming a coach. The expectation being that people would get to the minimum levels desired to run while in coaching. I've restored the original values because those were the numbers that were agreed upon back with Mbiz and I were trying to run Admin Coaching. Those numbers do not represent one persons opinion, but were decided based on consensus---but again I think the page should be retired. I don't think the few active coaches use those pages at all.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Several years ago, I suggested what was needed was adminship-lite or "provisional adminship". There was no traction at the time, but now I wonder about reviving it. See User:Doc glasgow/provisional adminship.--Scott Mac 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:RFA#How_about_a_probationary_period_for_admins? and at least one subsequent thread. ϢereSpielChequers 18:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, that proposal would mean effectively 2 RFAs. Can't see that helping.--Scott Mac 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That's oversimplifying the concept. I suggested a first pass using pure (uncommented) votes, and WereSpielChequers recommended appointment by a subset of 'crats. In each case the first pass would have been far lighter and less humiliating than the existing RfA, because there would be no scope for additional questions or comments in votes. All the heavy RfA stuff was to be deferred until the candidate had used the tools for a significant period, so that we could consider their actual use of the tools, rather than speculate on what they might do. This approach didn't get much support, perhaps because I didn't present the idea very well (it was intended to be a starting point for discussion rather than a finished proposal). But it wasn't effectively two "RfAs" as we currently use that term. - Pointillist (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggested this three years ago. Although, I basically would propose that the "first pass" isn't a community discussion at all. Crats would just give it to any established user who asked, unless someone could give a damn good reason not to. However, during the probationary period, any crat could "desysop" just as easily. (Anyone refused probationary admin, or who feels they've been unjustly deprived if it, can still appeal to the community by filing a regular RFA). My proposal made it genuinely "no big deal", but gave the community the last word at "conformation", when at least the community had something solid to assess. It is a bit like a provisional driving licence, very easy to get, and it really prepares you for the later test. --Scott Mac 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As you describe it, your original proposal looks very like WereSpielChequers's approach in the recent discussion. My suggestion for the first pass (pure uncommented votes) may have been more democratic but possibly started the debate off on the wrong foot, I'm afraid. Anyway, if you and WereSpielChequers would like to re-launch a proposal on these lines, I would happily support it. However, I do think that a candidate entering any provisional process should publicly answer a small number of standard questions at the outset, including some statements about his/her greatest contributions to en.wp in both the article and non-article spaces. - Pointillist (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'd oppose any questions. For who's benefit are the questions? The only purpose would be that the candidate is being examined by the community before being given provisional adminship. That would mean a candidate had to go through a scrutiny process TWICE, which is highly likely to delete, and will certainly increase the RFA circus potential. The only way this works for me is if a crat grants provisional, much the same way we give out rollback (although perhaps looking for a bit more experience). If you've had an account for x weeks and you've got about y edits, you can ask for a provisional adminship - basically you'll get it unless someone points to a solid reason why not. (Valid reasons would be things like "perpetual edit warring", "previously desysopped", "deliberate disruption or bad-faith editing" or "wait, that's a Greg Kohs sock").--Scott Mac 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The questions would be just part of the process for applying, like the personal statement on a university application form. The benefit of the answers is that the candidates would be formally introducing themselves in a standard, transparent way. I'm not thinking about all the speculative "how would you" questions in a traditional RfA, just basic stuff the 'crats (or whoever) would wish to know before deciding, something short like this:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past twelve months?

4. In addition to this account, have you ever edited from IPs or other accounts?

There wouldn't be any public debate about the candidate's answers before granting the tools: the 'crats (or whoever) would do their due diligence behind the scenes, and then simply vote. Scrutiny would go public after the probationary period, when everything would be up for discussion in the usual way – but by then hopefully we'd be talking mostly in terms of actual admin contributions and conduct. It wouldn't be appropriate to grant the admin tools without some formality, if only because of possible legal implications. - Pointillist (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not really relevant. Godwin's concern is with allowing Joe public to read deleted edits, not with the amount of "formality" to become an admin. Frankly, the bar to cross under a probationary system would be having an account for x months, behaving and making a few hundred sane edits, not filling in some questions just to create needless "formality". There would be absolutely no point in the questions you propose at the the first stage, and all it would do is create discussion about whether the questions had been "answer satisfactorily", more box-ticking, and an effective preliminary RFA. Anyone wanting adminship for nefarious reasons will, in any case, give perfect answers.--Scott Mac 10:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought I hadn't explained what I meant. Happy to "agree to differ" - Pointillist (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to get a bit more training material available to admins and others. But in the absence of that I would be comfortable with a crat appointing a provisional admin on the basis of having checked their AIV reports, CSD tags etc just as a rollbacker is appointed after demonstrating that they can tell the difference between vandalism and other editing. Alternatively I think you could make the provisional adminship dependent on only "approved" parts of the bit being used, so for example a provisional admin shouldn't appoint AutoPatrollers or block users until they've nominated a few successfully and someone from the relevant board drops a note on their talkpage encouraging them to use that part of the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a new rights group "provisional admin". It would be identical to admin, perhaps minus a few bells, but importantly, crats would be able to grant and remove the right. We make it easy to remove - automatically removed for any bad-faith use, and for any less than competent use after one warning. Indeed, we could have the principle that it is suspended on the reasoned request of any three admins (it can always be reinstated, after discussion, if the complaint turns out to be unreasonable). --Scott Mac 12:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's technically possible to create such a userrgroup (whether consensus can be found for it is another story). –xeno^talk 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bah: technical solutions to social problems. I can see two relatively easy ways to achieve this right now:

• "Provisional admins" are temporarily sysopped, but are prohibited from using some tools (e.g. they're not allowed to block users). If they use the prohibited tools, they're out. If they refrain from using the using the prohibited tools, continue along the process towards full adminship.
• (I hates this one) Provisional admins don't get the mop at all, but instead make admin calls, which are then procedurally carried out by crats or admins (e.g. if User:ProvAdmin wants User:VandalsAreUs blocked they post at WP:Provisional Admin Requests and a handy crat or admin blocks the vandal. I don't like this because it creates work for other people.

Either way, this can be done, without technical wizardry or tool unbundling. TFOWR 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It would also be useful to warn new editors ahead of time that numerous automated edits early on may come back to haunt them if they are interested in becoming an admin. Such an advisory could be placed in text related to sign ups for the various editing tools. Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I know it is by far the least sexy thing crats do, but we are the ones who close requests for people to join WP:BAG. We haven't had a new BAG member in about four months now and there is something of a backlog developing at WP:BRFA, so if there are some technical minded people or at least people who can review technical requests, new BAG membership requests would be most appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was the sexiest. Kingturtle (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe what's really needed is a healthy injection of old timers contributing as participants in RfAs. Since passing RfB, I hardly ever !vote any more, but I rarely am around at the right time to close an RfA anyway, so maybe I should start doing so again. --Dweller (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't vote. :( 174.52.141.138 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you banned? Blocked? --Dweller (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

IP address :) -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You can, you'd just need to log into your account to do it... WJBscribe (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm retired. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You're doing a pretty mediocre job at being retired :) Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's just my dynamic IP at home. It'll change again soon enough. I'm also 67.136.117.132, so, yeah, I'm doing a poor job being retired. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on, start editing with an account again. You clearly have a lot to offer, judging by your IP edits. --Dweller (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You know what? Okay. I've been thinking of a couple new projects I'd like to do here, and I definitely miss having a watchlist. But there are still a few things I'd like to do before coming out of retirement. I think I'll make September 1st the date of my "triumphant return." 67.136.117.132 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Drop me a line when you do, and I'll roll out a red carpet. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(not a crat and ec'd and my response below matches your request) Dweller is right, very right. I was looking over some of my old nominations recently and not only did it strike me that I don't see a lot of names anymore (sadly) but it makes it clear how standards have gone up even from such a small sample. Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) with just over 5,000 edits. Nancy (talk · contribs) with well under 5,000. WilliamH (talk · contribs) with less than 6,000. Oh, and I passed with 4,500 as a, to quote "kick ass vandal fighter" and with such a foolishly large number of nominators (no disrespect to them, but it was a tad embarrasing) that ever since it's being RFA etiquette not to have more than a couple. And that was like around 1100 days ago. Which ain't a long time.

I'm not sure about the problem of RFA participation. I think we've a better solution, and it has been done. If standards have gone up (they have) and we have less active admins (we have) and this may cause a problem (it may - not proven) lower the percentage for passing. 70% + automatic. 60-70% crat discretion. Pedro :  Chat  20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The common practice of RfAs is for bureaucrats to refrain from !voting, thereby eliminating any potential conflict of interest for any particular bureaucrat closing the request. And that common practice is completely warranted. But if it was common practice for bureaucrats to participate fully in RfAs, talking freely and !voting, then there would be an additional 20 or so people involved in the RfA process. This would make close calls more complicated, yes, but it'd get more voices in there. Just something to consider, Kingturtle (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that more oldtimers such as crats !voting at RFA would be a big positive. To ensure some crats remain neutral and free to close RfAs you could always restrict yourself to voting where you have experience of the candidate, or each simply pick a range of hours when you are unlikely to edit, and only !vote in RfAs that are expected to close at a time when you are unlikely to be online for several hours, as you know you won't get to close them. ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I just waved popups over all of ya, and only Kingturtle has been here longer than I. 2004-10-31. @48000 edits. 0 RfAs, here. Just some history and enemies. This is about teh toxic wiki, or whatever you care to call it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point(s). Could you clarify what you mean? --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm underlining the fact that to most out there, the mop is a very big deal indeed, that RfA is a gauntlet that must be run simply to have access to some useful tools. <opinion>I would be useful with more tools, although I'm rather useful as-is.</opinion> I've a mop at s:User:Jack Merridew and it's no big deal. It's not a toxic place. But I've never sought a bit here and it's because some will never forget my past, which was before most editors even found this site. I confront poor notions quite regularly and I do so out of concern for the best interests of the project, but this would all be brought up if I posted an RfA. It would be a three ring circus, with a 'crat-chat at the end. I like the idea of senior editors such at the 'crat participating in RfAs. It would be nice of more senior folk of all strips did, Arbs, mere admins, the experienced, the wise. As it is, the RfAs are mostly dominated by the rabble with their torches and pitchforks. Of course there are some mellow RfA, but this whole process has led to a fair number of cases where people adopt a 'good-admin-candidate' persona as a route to getting through the ordeal. This amounts to role-play, which is not what we want. It has, in part, led to an admin corp that is too mild when it comes to solving problems; the problems go unsolved and we have an accumulation of toxicity. This is a path to project failure. 800 active admins? What was the metric? 60 edits a month? That's not 'active', 60 actions a day, is active. We probably don't have 200 by that standard. This results in burn-out, in problems festering for years until things explode into megabyte AC/workshops. We should have another route to adminship, special appointments. If 80% of opining 'crats thought it appropriate that someone be given the tools, just do it per IAR. We're supposed to trust your judgment. NB: the 48k, above, includes better than 10K on non-en:wp projects. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

<-I don't support this initiative. Not only is it a solution in search of a problem, it could potentially become a problem. Imagine an RfA that is shaping up to be a close call. Three or four 'crats weigh in, and they all happen to be on the same side. 'crats aren't supposed to be simply counting, they are supposed to be weighing arguments. You don't think an argument from a fellow 'crat may sound more solid than from some average editor? Let's even assume this isn't true - and the closing 'crat can completely separate the arguments from the author. You don't think someone is going to say "Hmmm? Interesting that the decision went the same way as the 'crat positions." Suppose it is a really contentious RfA, and it requires a 'crat chat. Now you need to recuse all those who contributed, presumably those with more than average interest in the process, and round up a number of uninvolved 'crats, each of whom has to be completely blind to the fact that several of their group weighed in on one side. Recipe for disaster. There's much to debate about the RfA process, but looking for more 'crat participation isn't high on my list of issues.--SPhilbrickT 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly would continue to avoid opining on or deciding any RfA where I had !voted. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Crats to make plea for greater participation in RfA

How do the other Crats feel about us, collectively, making a plea for greater participation at RfA, especially by old timers who might have stopped participating there as much as they once did? We don't need to canvass support, just participation. --Dweller (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant to answer that the other night. I don't think it is a good idea for bureaucrats to be singled out as recruiters or solicitors. Some people may be rubbed the wrong way, and I think it sends the wrong message-that bureaucrats are special or think they are special. This effort needs to come from a group of interested users of all ranks, shapes and sizes. Kingturtle (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your thrust Dweller but I'm not sure that RFA participation is an issue. I also agree very much with Kingturtle's thoughts above. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Bureaucrats aren't special, but they have a special interest in RfA. --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But admins and others aren't special, and they have a special interest in RfA too. Kingturtle (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'm just looking to encourage people to take a special interest in RfA, because I think too few old timers are still involved. --Dweller (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dweller, what do you think the current community of active participants could learn from the old timers? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to develop an old-timers/newcomers delineation . I am afraid it would morph into a seniority dynamic. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival, which reminds us all "We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect." Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, we don't want to get into a seniority dynamic. Dweller's comment implies to me that he thinks something (perspectives, attitudes?) has changed. Are the attitudes found in the current to the community of active participants different to the attitudes of old (old = a few years ago!)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to me that Dweller is simply trying to bring back some perspective that us old timers have. The question becomes what the difference will be, if any. Certainly if 20 bureaucrats show up to participate, it'll be enough to change the numbers on the RFA, but it's highly unlikely that will happen. What is more probable is that if a few 'crats participate, there might be a few "per crat XYZ" because bureaucrats' opinion is generally respected. Is the objective of bringing in bureaucrats to participate to make RFA easier to pass? If that's the objective, I don't think this would be the correct way to go about it. If the objective is to get participation by some individuals who would likely do a thorough inspection of the candidate, then this wouldn't be a bad way. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}13:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, the inflation of editcountitis expectations at RfA would probably shock a lot of people who've not participated (much) at RfA since, say, 2007 or 2008. --Dweller (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

HagermanBot has not been active since May 25, 2007, and is most likely a retired bot. I think this bot's bot flag should be removed. This was also done with Android Mouse's bots (User:Android Mouse Bot, 2, 3 and 4). /HeyMid (contributions) 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Deflagging bots at random seems inefficient at best. See Wikipedia_talk:Bag#Bots_.26_long_term_inactivity for a more organized effort. –xeno^talk 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pls see User_talk:Rlevse#Alternate_and.2For_rename_advice. Anything to be done here? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here. --John (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A CHU/Simple I did on August 17 (User:Anthony.bradbury to User:Anthony Bradbury) has not yet fully transitioned. None of his 14,000+ edits from before the name change have moved into his new name's user contributions list. I've seen this before with larger edit counts. Sometimes it can take a little time; sometimes it needs attention. Since it has now been two days, I thought I'd bring it up here. Kingturtle (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With >10K edits, the attribution can take weeks, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

2 days is no cause for concern. 2 weeks, start to wonder. A month, ping a developer. See Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 3#Stalled renames and bugzilla:17313. –xeno^talk 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with the advice above. But it's strange, because some large reattributions go through very swiftly. I guess it just depends what's in the queue at the time. --Dweller (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a theory that if the user logs out prior to the rename, it helps avoid problems. Could be mere superstition/coincidence, though. –xeno^talk 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Kingturtle (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone. My BAG nomination has been open for a bit over a week, and I was wondering if a bureaucrat could take a look at it and close it. Thanks! - EdoDodo ^talk 04:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is about WP:RFA/MZMcBride 4.--Chaser (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The SNOW or NOTNOW principle is an accepted part of wikipedia; however, I have always understood it to be a measure intended to protect newer editors from the emotional trauma of massive opposition. If an experienced editor wants a discussion to remain open the entire time, it should be completely their prerogative. If an editor wants the discussion to remain open to gain as much constructive feedback as possible, that should be encouraged. As such, I think that MZM has the right to re-open the discussion without prejudice, and should be allowed to use the full length of time to obtain feedback, regardless of how obvious we may believe the outcome to be. -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. He probably should have just asked NJ to reverse his decision, but I'm willing to overlook it because his one-word reply was hilarious. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but MZM went about it all the wrong way. I have nothing further to say about this than what I said in the oppose section on his reopened RfA. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Avi, I mostly agree. But I think NOTNOW/SNOW can and should also be used where the outcome is all but assured, and the only likelihood at this point is fomenting drama.→ ROUX ₪ 06:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should slightly reword them to make them applicable to any editor, not just new ones? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation was that SNOW was written for everyone to be bailed out if they're failing with flying colors, and NOTNOW was written as an extension because SNOW is too harsh on new users. I still think that SNOW can be applied to everyone, but NOTNOW is really reserved for new editors. (X! · talk)  · @300  ·  06:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NihonJoe, I would disagree with that, per above. If there is anywhere that we can apply the aphorism that wikipedia is not paper, it is in the areas that are NOT encyclopedic content, but maintenance. Even if the conclusion is as forgone as the day is long, perhaps someone will give the editor in question the perfect piece of advice. We should not prevent people from attempting self improvement, even if it appears that is not the case. In this case, even if you believe MZM is a drama hound and wants his semi-annual 15 minutes, how can you know that this time will not be the one where someone advises him in just the right way to help him overcome whatever issues he has, and that he stops for 18 months, becomes a model wikipedian, and passes on the next try? You don't know, I don't know, no one knows. So as long as MZM is willing to withstand the emotional toll willingly, we should not close the discussion early. NOTNOW remains a protective measure, not an efficiency tool. -- Avi (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, NOTNOW itself says "Note that some editors prefer their RFAs to remain open, even if clearly failing, as the feedback is useful." -- Avi (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point Avi. Also, the RfA in question was originally closed per snow, but was reopened soon after. I'm not sure if that was a crat move or just some passer by, but both rationales were used. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's a good point, Avi... but it raises the question of 'how many times does a user need to be told the same thing?' →ROUX ₪ 06:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As many as they want. If people get tired of it, I am sure there will be a slew of opposes in the first 15 minutes and then the RfA can be ignored for the next 6 days and 23+ hours. At least that is my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2)While I would have left it open, I do believe it is within the purvue of 'crats to close any rfa early if the results are all but assured. RfA's are not guaranteed to be open for 7 days.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While it technically is in our purview, I believe, I am opposed to it for the reasons stated above, which is why this discussion is useful to find out what the greater wikipedia community's opinions are. -- Avi (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but I think HJ sums up my position pretty accurately. I think Joe was within his rights in closing the RfA and that MZM should have asked Joe to reopen it. A request which should generally be accepted. MzM should not have reopened it himself as it was closed by a crat (he could open, IMO, one closed by an admin or other user.) There does come a point where keeping this open might turn into a true farce/become disruptive and it's the 'crats job to determine if RfA's even of respected members have reached that point.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur that it would have been much better for MZM to have asked Joe to reopen it than open it himself. MZM's actions here reflect on how he would enforce and interpret wiki policy, and, as Joe mentions below, this is certainly a piece of information that will help people decide on MZM's appropriateness for being a sysop. -- Avi (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hate community consensus so much that I sought to not have it truncated on the whims of an individual swooping in during the middle of the night. Foiled! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Avi: "emotional toll" is an interesting term to use. I've found (both on the Internet and in real life) that the comments that have a real impact are the ones that come from people you respect. A lot of the opposes (not a majority, probably, though I haven't counted) come from people with all sorts of baggage: socking, ragequits, petty grievances, and in some cases, a general lack of clue. Those opposes can safely be ignored. The opposes that make reasonable points and come from reasonable editors are the ones worth paying mind to. Those are much, much rarer, from what I've seen. My hope is that I can be more forgiving toward these editors than they can be toward me. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I was always under the impression that 'crat closures of RfAs were final, rather like an admin closure at AfD. That said, I believe Joe misjudged the likely result of closing this particular RfA, though MZ was procedurally incorrect in reverting, as opposed to requesting it be re-opened, but his re-opening should be allowed to stand for no other reason than everyone should have better things to do than edit war over it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone here, least of all me, is arguing it should be reclosed. At this point, I'm happy to see it go down in flames since it's blatantly obvious MZM doesn't care about following any rules but his own. Reopening it likely hurt him worse than anything else he's done recently. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree Joe; this will help people decide on MZM's suitability for sysop. In my opinion, the best option would have been for MZM to have asked you, or at least asked here, for a reopen. Separating the specifics of this case with the general question of "sure-to-fail" RfAs that have been requested by the candidate to stay open is important; agreed. -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • There are a lot of things that could have been done more appropriately. I think everyone already had a rough idea how the RFA would end up but MZM went ahead anyway in the hopes of getting input in a format that is helpful to him, if not anything else - I think this should have been respected instead of toyed with. That is, it wasn't an exercise for a particular crat to boldly try to choke someone with his own personal opinion about how the process should work, after which that crat would boldly propose to change the page that somewhat contradicts that opinion. It's pretty obvious that it would have been better to wait for the RFA to actually finish, or wait for MZM to ask a crat to close it, or wait for MZM to withdraw it. After all, people aren't obligated to undergo RFA. But if a person wants to, let that person complete it as he/she desires so that it can hopefully help that person improve (and know what to work on). If people think that they already said what needs to be said to a candidate, those people are not obligated to participate in the process or restate their views. That said, it probably wouldn't hurt to have updated views from those people, or clarifications (when asked). And as for MZM's suitability to be a sysop, that discussion really ought to stay at the open RFA itself so that the apparent partial purpose of the RFA can be accomplished (without being hijacked here due to a crat's ill-considered judgement; the drama from this premature move has far exceeded any drama that would have resulted from the RFA coming to its natural conclusion). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) No one was toying with anything, and I wasn't trying to "choke someone with [my] own personal opinion about how the process should work", so please don't try to attribute something to me which isn't the case and which isn't supported by any evidence at all. I closed it because there was no chance for it to ever pass, so there isn't any reason to keep it open. MZM apparently disagrees and reopened it. If I was trying to force him into accepting the close, I would have taken further action regarding the close, but I have not, instead choosing to let it continue on its merry way. As for my "proposal", it was more of a question of whether we ought to look at rewording it to make it applicable to everyone rather than just new editors. That's certainly a reasonable possibility, and your painting of my suggestion in such a negative light is not welcome, not appreciated, or (most of all) correct. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
          • This is how it appears. His response to your ill-considered judgement was what prompted the reversion, as well as your pointy oppose (that's why it seems like toying, otherwise you'd have not brought attention to this yourself; someone else would have). You would have instead apologised on his talk - did you? No? Did you even tell him that you would've appreciated if he spoke to you first? No again? I'm sure your intentions were noble in trying to protect him even though he's not a new user, but clearly he knew what he was getting himself into and still went ahead - he specifically did not appreciate your interference. Yet apparently, you still don't appreciate the different things RFA entails - you're still looking at it as a plain "successful/unsuccessful", "already got tools/gets tools/doesn't have tools". Seriously, others may not have gotten through to you, but has Avi's comments gotten through to you? I didn't say you tried to force him to accept your bold move after it was reverted, but by de facto, except on the occasions where an admin or crat is ready to reverse their judgement after discussion (however long that takes), people are often expected to accept that judgement as final without much recourse. If you didn't try the "shoot first, discuss later" approach, this would have proceeded differently, and it's mind-boggling that you still have not acknowledged that. On your talk, 3 other people also expressed concerns about the way you handled this. This is a crat noticeboard and it's about your judgement as a crat; not a mere candidate's judgement for adminship (that candidate has a RFA where that can be discussed separately). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
            • The only thing that is mind-boggling here is your continued attribution of malice to my closure. There's no reason to tell him I would have appreciated if he spoke to me first before he undid the closure. As you said, he's experienced here and he should know better than to undo the closure, especially on his own RfA. If he had asked, I may very well have reopened it even though there is no chance it will ever pass, and it is therefore a waste of time. All the suggestions people have to make have already been covered and it's unlikely he will gain much more benefit from people rehashing the same reasoning over and over. WHile, as Avi indicated, it is remotely possible that someone will word something just the right way for it to worm its way into MZM's brain and actually make a positive impression, I do not see that possibility as very likely. People have been offering him suggestions on how to improve his interactions here for years and he doesn't appear to have taken any of it to heart. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My original research: MZM is looking at this as a discussion on trust: He can be trusted. Know the allusion? The West Wing, specifically Mandy. He has the core goals of the project at heart. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs. He moved the ethical stance of the project forward re BLP. That's huge progress. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Basis for early bureaucrat closure of RfAs

I think there is some misunderstanding (including by bureaucrats) of the basis upon which bureaucrats may close a failing RfA early. WP:SNOW is derived from WP:IAR and is appropriate reasoning to be relied upon by a non-bureaucrat closing an RfA. The RfA page has for at least 5 years included the sentence (under "Decision process"): "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open." That to my mind is policy and I believe (though someone may want to do the research and correct me if I'm wrong) that it predates WP:SNOW. In other words, bureaucrats may exercise their judgment to close an RfA where promotion is unlikely and they judge that there is no merit in it continuing. Such a close, I believe, should not be reverted without discussion.
I suspect from above that Nihonjoe did not intend his close to be final and that he was acting, like any other editor, within the scope of the rules allowing for early closure of RfAs by anyone. Those closes I believe, should be reverted if the candidate objects. The RfA should then run until either (a) the scheduled end time or (b) early closure by a bureaucrat, acting as a bureaucrat, based on the RfA policy itself (rather than IAR/SNOW reasoning). WJBscribe (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride's RfA was closed per snow, by ChiefJusticeDS. PeterSymonds reverted that closure. NihonJoe closed per notnow, and it's unclear whether your argument applies to that rationale. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think WJB makes a valuable point. The capacity in which a bureaucrat closes an RfA should affect how lightly the close may be undone. I suppose the lesson to take away from this is that bureaucrats would be well advised to make the distinction clearer in future. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually did intend the closure to be final, but I'm not willing to cause "moar dramaz" just to be pointy. I think a closure can be based on both the RfA policy and SNOW/NOTNOW. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a problem is that certain users who hold extra privilleges appear as if they expect to be treated like royalty on Wikipedia (whether or not this is their actual intent). Perhaps this is partially because some of the more conservative views have tried to promote these roles (like cratship) as something that it's not. What can be seen in recent months is that people's views are very gradually beginning to evolve, and they are rejecting the red tape when it is being used in a manner in which it should not be; all of this is not so obvious. When someone raises a concern with such an user who holds privileges, and all that user keeps offering is patronising responses and/or ones that evades concerns, people think twice. A line will eventually be drawn where no quantity of theoretical analysis, policy wonking and/or politicking will be able to disguise the actual source of the problems. More consideration, more humility & more effective communication with others (including candidates), combined with better judgement and more common sense, is really all that is needed/expected of the crats, and frankly, I don't think that's too much to ask for. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For an experienced candidate an early close without checking first would normally be poor form but this was an exception. McBride's is a divisive RFA due to the strong reactions he provokes from both sides, there was a greater than usual amount of mud slinging and drama even before the close. With no chance of success theres no point in keeping the RFA open with all the distracting hostility. Ncmvocalist suggests McBride may benefit from feedback but that doesnt seem credible going by the attitude the candidates so far expressed to opposing and neutral comments. Maybe Joe could have asked Mcbride first but then closing the RfA to avoid distracting the community from our work in building the encyclopedia seems something in line with McBride's view, going by his campaign against secret pages on the grounds they distract from our core purpose. Good move Joe, hopefully someone else will close once he gets to WP100. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(od) I just noticed that this is already being discussed here (I guess I don't haunt the right pages!). My 2 cents: In this case there was no need to unilaterally close the RfA. It's not like MZMcBride is sitting around fretting "do I have to put up with this for 7 days!" or waiting for some groundswell of popular support. Nor do I see the RfA causing disruption. Nor is it likely that he is misreading consensus. If he wanted to close it, he could just do it himself. A polite note on MZM's talk page asking for permission to close it would have been more appropriate. I would also suggest that, if you really must close an RfA like this one, a 'form letter' [12] is not the best way to inform an editor with MZMcBride's experience (that note gives new meaning to the term 'bureaucrat'). It is hardly surprising to me that MZM did not bother contacting Nihonjoe after reading that note.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. That wasn't a "form letter" as I made it up as I was writing it. I apologize that it wasn't witty enough for you, but I saw no reason to try to inject gaiety and humor into the situation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In regards to SNOW, I've always viewed it as something to use to protect a naive or new user from experiencing a pile on, and something to use for more experienced users at their request only. In either of these cases, I think it is okay for any admin to jump into action, but in the second case at the candidate's request only. Occasionally there isn't a bureaucrat around to close an RfA that needs more immediate attention. Kingturtle (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• It should be noted that WP:BUR has only limited guidance for early closures (simply a link to "WP:NOTNOW"), whereas WP:Requests for adminship/Front matter#Decision process states that "Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open." Reconciling these two pages would probably be in order. –xeno^talk 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC) clarify. and I've just realized this is slightly redundant to WJBscribe above, who I concur with entirely. 22:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would support tweaking WP:CRAT to match the latter. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So would I. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BRD! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[13] looks like a withdraw, but I'm really not sure and I'd actually encourage him to stick it out (even though I'm an opposer). Can someone sort it out and maybe talk him out of it? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I dropped them a note. –xeno^talk 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice that User:Falcon8765 has withdrawn their RfA, so perhaps it should be closed and de-listed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Xeno. MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This proposed change would affect the guidance given you for closing RfA's: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proposal of August 31 2010 Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 15:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The bureaucrat and arbitrator who placed the RFA on hold will take whatever steps may be necessary. –xenotalk 23:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timothymarskell Timothymarskell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Marskell The account Timothymarskell is blocked, and the account Marskell has been de-sysopped. However, the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timothymarskell "has been placed on hold by a bureaucrat pending a decision as to the outcome". Perhaps this RFA page should no longer be "on hold", but rather, closed? -- Cirt (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Seems like a sensible suggestion. Aiken ♫ 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Or deleted? Why keep it? BencherliteTalk 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) That seems a bit much, as it is evidence of disruptive behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC) <Shrug> Well, the disruptive account has been blocked – do we need to preserve and archive this? Nothing happened in the RFA, and all the relevant discussions took place at the user's talk page. Let's see what a crat thinks; I don't particularly mind what happens but was just making a suggestion. BencherliteTalk 23:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC) The Timothymarskell (talk · contribs) account has been blocked yes, but the Marskell (talk · contribs) account has not. Regardless, If the Timothymarskell (talk · contribs) account were to be unblocked at a future point in time, its subsequent RFA page would be at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timothymarskell 2, not again at the first RFA page for the account. -- Cirt (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, inquired with the bureaucrat that placed the RFA of the blocked user, "on hold". -- Cirt (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I made an informal proposal regaining waiting periods for LTV at Wikipedia_talk:Right_to_vanish

The decision to allow LTVRTV and the associated rules is properly a community decision. However, as the process is handled by 'crats, you may have special insight into issues which may be relevant, so I am mentioning it here. (I assume actually making a change to policy would require more than a simple discussion at the talk page, but I wanted to get a sense of what others think, before formalizing the discussion.)--SPhilbrickT 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RTV is one of the most abused and misused things on en wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Rlevse that the process is badly handled around here. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What is "LTV"? A typo, or something else? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Assessment of consensus on pending changes trial. I am asking that uninvolved admins give their determination of consensus on the pending changes trial, none did so until now. I am asking here in your quality of experienced admins, not bureaucrats. Cenarium (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this request from a retiring admin. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well en.wiki 'crats don't have the ability to remove the admin bit, it has to be done on Meta. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Left a note on meta on his behalf, though not sure if it'll be accepted.  7  11:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done by dferg. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I hereby request the restoration of my admin and bureaucrat bits. See:

• Removal request.
• Steward completion.
• Meta Userrights log.

I have read the June-August archives on WP:BN and most of the archives of the same time frame on WT:RFA. I will read the archives of Wikipedia:Bot requests if requested. Thanks. Useight (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if someone objects to this. I'm willing to do it myself after din-din. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Xeno

Q. How many items did you complete in your todo list while you were gone? Any bigguns?

A: Read all the books except one; watched some of the classic films (still missing the ones only on VHS); autobiography is coming along; penmanship has been practiced (although is still severely deficient); ballroom danced a couple of times with my wife; learned a better way to tie a bow (although I can't get it sufficiently tight); worked with a vocal coach and have improved my ability to hit higher notes without breaking into falsetto; learned to bake brownies and cook no-bake cookies. I still don't have access to a vehicle to practice driving stick, my best bowling score in the past three months was 212, there's an orchestra performing near here later this month, and Brian Regan will be performing about 45 miles from here in November. So, that's where I'm at so far. Useight (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

212? Disappointing, I made 225 a few weeks back. So, I leaning on the side of deny return of bits until you can hit a six pack... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've broken 250 twice in the distant past (just over three years now), 258 and 269, but I wanted to do it again. Just didn't happen. Although this conversation does make me want to go bowling again; haven't done it in a month and my bowling shoes are in the trunk of my car. Catch you guys later. Per WP:BEANS, the lanes are calling. Useight (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Useight (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate clearly hasn't levelled his cooking skill enough, but I've no objections. –xeno^talk 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have 100 nights of camping within the last 5 years? That's an essential requirement for a crat too you know. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute.... I didn't have 100 nights of camping withing the 5 years prior to my RfB... so my RfB shouldn't have passed. Now to see who closed my RfB. Wait a minute....

NOOOOOOO

Useight! I object to this recratting! Look! He clearly cratted me when I should NOT have been recratted! (X! · talk)  · @199  ·  03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, okaeri. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Presently it looks like closing 'crats all have their own notification methods for users who have passed RFA. I took Rlevse's from user talk:Thumperward/Archive 52#Congratulations and turned it into {{admingrats}}, which looks like this:

Rlevse suggested pointing it out here, as there doesn't seem to be much in the way of standardisation when it comes to this sort of thing.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I like this because it gives new crats links to things they may not have used before. It was put on my talk page when my RFA ended and hope some of my fellow crats find it useful. Just put the template on their talk page, no parameters needed as it reads baseusername. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also {{New Sysop}}. –xeno^talk 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. maybe they could be combined. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've converted {{New Sysop}} into an ombox now, so a merge would be fairly trivial if desired. Are there any more of these in the wild, not yet added to category:user notification templates related to requests for adminship or category:user rights granting notification templates? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

None come to mind at present. –xeno^talk 14:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this thread came up because of my simplistic way of informing Wifione, but I'm assuming so. I was perfectly aware of the two aforementioned templates, but I passed on using either one. For one, the wording is just not me. For instance, on the smaller of the two it states, "I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA." I would never say something like that. Seems cheesy. Or on the first, "It is my great pleasure to inform you..." I don't talk like that either. Perhaps I'm biased, though, as I was informed of my adminship by Deskana with the words "Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck!", which is more my style. I also don't like templating the regulars. But, hey, if the rest of the bureaucrats want to standardize the procedure, then I'm fine with switching it up. Useight (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer to use simpler statements, but to each their own. –xeno^talk 15:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the templates existing, but I don't think they should be required to be used. I also like using my own words, even if I've sort of created a template to help me remember everything. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the third or fourth time that this type of template has been brought up (and shot down) on this page over the past 3 years.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked WP:BUR to make it clear these templates are a matter of personal preference. –xeno^talk 16:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Note I never suggested making it require, just said I was making others aware of it. And no, Useeight had nothing to do with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aw, man. After four years my name is still being spelled incorrectly. But thanks for the closure on that. Useight (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"There doesn't seem to be much in the way of standardisation "? And? What is the advantage of standardisation of something like this? It's good for the 'crats to have to figure out their own messages and their own degree of cheesiness (like Useight) and even to sometimes consider adapting the message to the particular new admin. And it's good for the admins to feel personally welcomed. If I remember rightly [/me goes into Tribal Elder mode ], Cecropia gave me a present (er, just an image of a present)—a lovely microwave. :-) The context was that people had for some reason presented me with a lot of kitchenware and other gifts by way of congratulations... anyway, the 'crat microwave made me very happy. No need to create an Admin Microwave template, though... keep it unique! Nothing to stop you providing a list of useful links such as Rlevse's as well, separately, as several people have already suggested. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

If this is an ombox, isn't it easy to substitute an image in it? also, to make the start and finishing text more customisable? (To allow for customised cheesieness : ) - jc37 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some slight changes to the template? There seems to be alot of boldness in it atm, I made a example on a few minor tweaks at User:Peachey88/Sandbox/Table. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 00:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If some of us want to use templates; fine. If others don't; also fine. I don't see the big issue here :) -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I echo Avi's sentiments completely. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I also echo Avi's sentiments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The big issue is that, prior to this thread, this noticeboard was empty. An empty noticeboard indicates things are running along just fine. The obvious solution would be for someone do something daft to require a proper BN thread. –xeno^talk 17:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bureacrats. My Bot (User:DASHBot) is being a bit overloaded, so I'd like to use a second account to do the Vandalism job I was approved for. For this the new account (User:DASHBotAV) will need a rollback right, and a reviewer flag. I'm not sure if it needs a bot flag, so you decide that one. You can take away User:DASHBot's rollbacker right if you want. Tim1357 ^talk 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Y OK, you're all set. Although it doesn't flag edits with b, the bot flag offers additional benefits and adds it to the automatic count at WP:Bots. –xeno^talk 18:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the user category above. I turned my mop in almost 2 months ago [14], due to apathy and lack of free time. I'm still pretty apathetic, and still don't have much free time, but on the rare occasions when I log in, it might be useful to be able to do something adminish for someone at the help desk or something. May I have my mop back, please? It's the one over there in the corner with "Floq" and a little lightning bolt carved into the handle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

hafta say the header of this caught my eye... but I know of no reasons why not to give it back... I'm of the opinion, that if Flo uses the mop once, it'll be a net benefit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, fast service around here. Thanks Nihonjoe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We aim to please. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Here. → ROUX ₪ 23:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Useight (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll just point out that this is the first time in over three years that I've come here and seen zero RFAs listed. I've seen seasonal dips, but never zero. I'd guess that it's no longer seen as a career progression here. Rodhullandemu 23:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time in the last three years, but it may be the longest of those time periods with no RFAs. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No one wants to go though RFA, the last few RFAs that passed as over 20 oppose votes, RFA standards has become stricter. Secret ^account 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not condoning antagonistic comments from supporters or opposers at RfA, but I can make a pretty good guess as to why some people's standards have risen. In any case, the main page is still here (I think). --WFC-- 07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that this might be a good time to revisit the idea that adminship isn't for life and therefore we should have a robust de-adminship process analogous to RFA. Unfortunately I have been advised by my doctor that attempting to joust with wind-based energy generating devices that are run by those who would be affected by such a process is bad for my health. → ROUX ₪ 07:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should write one up which incorporates everything which has been supported in the past as well as not incorporating anything which has not received support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That is an impossibility. The only thing that has been somewhat supported in the past is a general feeling of "well, we should be able to forcibly remove admin status," and everything else has been opposed. It's depressing. → ROUX ₪ 09:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The only thing, IMHO, that might fly in that regard is something along the line of deadmining for admins we haven't seen nor heard from in over a year or so. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • And even that will be met with vehement opposition.. --Conti|✉ 11:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know where you've been Rod, but there's been several occasions in the past year when there's been no RFAs listed. And I don't get how lack of RFAs = time to desysop others. Aiken (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, timing on this is bad. Our active admin numbers are going steadily down so this would be like shooting ourselves in the foot. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The argument (I think a valid one, although YMMV) is that, if it were easier to remove admins without too much drama if they turned out to be problematic, people would be more willing to support marginal candidates and thus the number of active admins would increase. – iridescent 12:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a single "problematic" current admin. Of course, your definition of problematic probably differs considerably to mine. Aiken (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And in any case, we don't want weaker admin candidates passing. They're either suitable or not, there isn't really a middle ground. My original comment was more about desysopping inactives than "problematic" active ones. Aiken (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a way of dealing with problematic adminstrators in ArbCom, marginal candidates will fail no matter what. Secret ^account 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Although the discussion is only slowly beginning, there are some ideas being floated and opined as regards recall and lengths of tenure regarding this issue, feel free to add your thoughts, there is an attached talkpage. User:Off2riorob/Admin recall discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Copying userrights from sysop to bureaucrat. –xeno^talk 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I realize that this is going to fail. However, I request that it be allowed to run its course. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

The CHU and USURP templates now use {{User23}} which includes "listuser" (formerly "user creation logs"), "global account browser" (formerly "SUL report"), and "target logs" (formerly "userpage logs", "block log", and the short-lived "verify" buttons) - most of these formerly lived under "For bureaucrat use:" which wasn't quite accurate because clerks would also use them as well to verify the requests. You may have also noticed on the usurp page "Vacate target userspace" which is a hacky workaround until bugzilla:23819 is fulfilled. Would like to extend my thanks to the clerks for helping streamline the process, and Thesevenseas (talk · contribs) in particular, who has worked with me to rejig these templates to be more user- and bureaucrat-friendly. –xeno^talk 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the bug, so at some point in time, the vacate link will become unnecessary. (X! · talk)  · @586  ·  13:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good man. Thanks, –xeno^talk 13:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request the reactivation of my admin tools. I requested there removal back in March 2010 due to my severe lack of inactivity however I am looking to return slowly to activity and would like the tools back. The original request for removal of the tools was [15]. Many Thanks Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Many Thanks Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Could a 'crat please restore my bit? I took a long break but am returning to activity. Here is my removal request on meta. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Looks good, resysoping should be uncontraversial. Meets WP:RESYSOP. RfA located here. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 276° 44' 0" NET 18:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

we have clerks at BN now? since when? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be news to me too. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:RESYSOP there's a good deal of checking and researching to be done before the bit is restored. So clerking the process should help you crats out. I guess if it's not required, I could always crawl away back to where I came from. :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 286° 14' 30" NET 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how this process works, but I want to add my support for restoring the bits to Andy/Laser brain. He took a break under no controversy, he has never abused the tools, and I know of no reason they shouldn't be restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if a sysop resigns under uncontraversial circumstances, they can ask for thier admin tools back from any crat without going through RfA. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 285° 20' 0" NET 19:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with LB, but Sandy's endorsement carries a lot of weight with me. @SSFTSS--yes, we know ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's always best to be told twice than not told at all! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 333° 35' 45" NET 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done as I could find nothing which would prevent the return of the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we normally force-rename vandals who take the names of famous people? "Eric Holder" was vandalizing tonight. (Of course he could be someone else with that name, but that isn't likely.) —Soap— 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean in the form of an usurpation so another user can take the username (ie. Eric Holder or someone with that name)? If not, then a block is usually enough. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 198° 58' 45" NET 13:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he means so that googling the well-known person whose name this is does not wind up having his google hits desecrated with a link to a Wikipedia page that says "BANNED USER" or the like. It's happened before. Risker (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's less likely to happen given both the user and user talk pages are (or have been) deleted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, though, why isn't user space {{NOINDEX}}-ed automatically? I've read something about this a couple of years ago, but I can't remember the rationale for letting search engines look into the user space. - Pointillist (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk may (or may not) be noindexed, but user pages are indexed. And if someone decides this account is a sock of someone else, they'll put a template on it, and we won't notice until someone complains. Risker (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk is not indexed by default (I believe you can opt-in). As far as I know, all the sock templates have NOINDEX built-in. –xeno^talk 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOINDEX for an incomplete archive of past discussions. –xeno^talk 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – There seems to be a consensus that this question can and will be addressed if and when it arises. Hans Adler 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Whether the weather of Rlevse's departure would be classified as cloudy. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Absolutely. No doubt in my mind he was generally an ok bureaucrat, but this departure was cloudy without a doubt. Aiken (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I did not read everything that happened (hence I was surprised to read this) but was there any real effort to remove his flags that was foiled by his resignation? Iirc, "cloudy" means that someone resigned to avoid flag-removal sanctions that would have happened otherwise. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC) "Cloudy" means MZMcBride seems to wish to stir things up. I would suggest he lays it on the table in the proper manner, not silly hints here there and everywhere, or just leaves it. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I'd say generally sunny with a few clouds here and there. Also, the odd shower here and there, but mainly dry. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 262° 40' 45" NET 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Is this grave-dancing really necessary? → ROUX ₪ 11:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC) If MZMcBride wishes to grave dance it will only reflect badly on himself. Starting this thread in this way here already looks poor to me. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Oh God. You're back? It isn't grave dancing to wonder whether someone who storms out will be allowed back in. Everyone, do try to not feed the diva. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I don't think the mainspace concerns would have lead to sanctions resulting in the removal of his bureaucrat privileges. –xenotalk 13:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I think it's interesting that you say that given, e.g., the FlyingToaster RFA. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) As I recall, the problems there were more widespread and were used in direct support of the RFA in question; in the present case, that remains to be seen. Note that I am in no way excusing plagiarism, but my thoughts are that unless there was much more to it, the one or two cases would not have lead to the removal of sysop/bureaucrat privileges. This is, of course, just my humble opinion and in light of the procedures in place, views of multiple bureaucrats would be taken into account before determining whether to re-grant userrights on request. –xenotalk 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I am completely uncomfortable with the idea of an arbitrator who violates copyright and plagiarises, and would have supported any attempt (i.e. arbcom) to have the user rights removed. These positions come with trust - how can we trust him after this? RFA candidates have failed over minor paraphrasing concerns in single DYK entries - this is a FA we're talking about, in addition to at least one DYK. His rude and dismissive response was completely unbecoming of any editor. He stormed off in a huff when the copyvios were brought to light and threw his toys out of the pram along the way. If this wasn't cloudy, I don't know what could possibly be. Aiken (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I don't see the need to be self righteous on this. Anyway this is not the place to have this debate, please if you must take it elsewhere. This should be a community decision not a crat decision. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC) As we stand, Rlevse can come back here and request his user rights back. As you say, it should be a community decision, not a bureaucrat one, so he should go through RFA/B like anybody else. Aiken (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) "Arbitrator" is a non sequitur since we are discussing bureaucrat privilege. Do note that the term "cloudy" has been largely deprecated from the information page in favour of the current verbiage ("...may have resigned for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions.") I don't think an extended debate on this at this point is a productive use of time, since Rlevse (talk · contribs) is not currently re-requesting privileges; rest assured that they wouldn't be re-granted without discussion. –xenotalk 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC) ^-- This is probably the most insightful comment in this thread. After reading it I don't see any need for further discussion. Hans Adler 18:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I wasn't aware any particular user rights were being discussed. He held a number of positions. I'm happy that you would allow a discussion, but I'm sure there are some bureaucrats who aren't so careful. This should surely be noted on the former admins page. Aiken (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC) The only privileges bureaucrats can re-grant are admin & bureaucrat - so discussion of the advanced privileges is off-topic and lies in the province of the Arbitration Committee. WP:RESYSOP #3 "strongly recommend[s] ... allow[ing] time for multiple bureaucrats to comment after the request was made before resysopping" and for-the-most--part this advice is followed except in uncontroversial situations. –xenotalk 14:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)No, it really shouldn't. It is obviously clear that there were a number of stressors were affecting Rlevse's judgement (to the point where I had actually considered asking a CU to double check that Rlevse hadn't lost control of his account, given how out-of-character his outbursts aimed at me were), and whatever those stressors were, he left Wikipedia of his own volition. Whether or not the problems related to copyvio would have led to sanctions, up to and including revocation of admin and other privileges, is quite simply an unknown quantity. If Rlevse elects to return, and if upon such return he wishes to regain his user privileges, at that time the crats can have a discussion (as granting +sysop is in their remit, as is regranting it after voluntary resignation), which may or may not include community input. It doesn't need to include community input because, as I said, it is the crat role to regrant, or not, admin rights which have been voluntarily resigned. I am not sure about how crat rights would be re-granted (though at a guess I would suspect that should crats and/or the community decline to regrant admin rights the crat flag would be similarly declined), and to my understanding the checkuser and oversight permissions were granted to Rlevse's account in his capacity as Arbitrator, which he resigned and I would guess cannot reassume by fiat; he would need to be re-elected. This entire thread is unseemly and rude. What all of this means is: there is absolutely no need to discuss this at this time, and there is no need to figuratively slam the door after Rlevse has walked out of it and paste a sign saying "NO RLEVSE ALOUD!!11!1111!." → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I think people have kicked Rlevse while he's down enough; I wish they'd stop. <--what Roux said, in handy template form. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Seconded. If no-one has anything startlingly new and useful to add, perhaps we can now close this thread. --Dweller (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Thirded I think it's time we let our dear friend retire in peace. It's over, until next time. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 332° 10' 15" NET 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WT:RFA

I would like to discuss the nature of end times for voting. In general, bureaucrats have taken some liberty with the end times, often closing the matter a little early or late, especially when the consensus is clear. It seems to me that it may be best to wait until the end time for the nomination has actually passed before promoting or removing a nomination. Given the number of bureaucrats who follow RFA, the likelihood that a new admin will have to wait more than a day or two for promotion seems low. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's currently what happens at the moment; crats typically only close RfAs after !voting time has passed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at 46 successful nominations over the last six months (May to Oct), ten nine were closed or placed on hold before the scheduled ending time. (+2h +2m +11m +25m -44m -32m +1h +1h +12m +2h +5m +54m -49m -2h24+2h24 -4m +2h +24m +1m +0m -12m -12m +44m +4m -6m +1h +5m +31m +11m +4h +3h +15m +2h +26m +4h +1h +0m -1h15 +6h +0m +5h +1h30m -5h07 +0m -2m +6h) –xeno^talk 18:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think half an hour makes much difference, but I don't think it would be best practice to close as successful with much more than that left on the clock. It doesn't look like a big issue, though—the majority seem to be closed a little while after their scheduled end time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As a guilty party for some of those, I will say that it's all common sense. Many of the 30m+ ones above are usually 95% support or better, where the chance of failure is getting very close to 0. Think of it as an early present. Is 30m really worth waiting for, when the consensus is clear? (X! · talk)  · @980  ·  22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

An exception is clearly this close by User:Nihonjoe as sucessful in the discretionary zone at 78.6 percent nearly 2.5 hours before time was up. This obviously should not happen. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading things wrong, but that one appears to have been closed 2.5 hours late. That diff clearly shows the close time to be 10:01 am, and it was closed at 12:25 pm. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was going by xeno's timings. Should always learn to check these things. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa, stand on me. –xeno^talk 13:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I voted in this RfA, and closed it on applicant's request, am requesting a peer review of closure of this RfA. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You can close an RfA as unsuccessful per the applicant's request even if you voted. There is no CoI there. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I dropped them a while back, but I'll have a bit more free time this winter, and frankly miss the busywork. I'll primarily be focusing on CSD, unblock requests, and perhaps (if someone points me in the right direction) doing a bit of moderation work on getting US politician BLPs steered back towards normalcy now that the silly season is over. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sent Avi an email to RTV me here and on commons, but if someone else gets a chance, feel free to take care of it sooner. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very possible that the edits will not completely transfer, or may take months, being that there are so many. -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect a developer may have to get involved. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

'crats can rename up to 200K edits and stewards up to 2M, IIRC. Developers need to be involved with >2M. -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Then we'll just have to wait for the job queue to grind through everything for a few weeks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be an arse here, but due to the copyvio concerns behind this whole sorry affair, a complete WP:CCI is likely to be conducted on Rlevse's article contribution, if only to ensure that what we currently know about is all there is. Renaming the account will make the review and fixing of any outstanding issues impossible.

And on a personal note, while I understand emotions are high, I believe it would be highly preferable if Rlevse stuck around and helped with the cleanup process. Regardless of what some posters have written, WP:CCI is mostly populated by contributors who acted without malice, and those who helped clean up and recover have always been held in high regard by the tiny part of the community who normally concerns itself with copyvio matters. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

All his contributions remain under the new name, so there should be no difficulty in identifying said edits. As for Rlevse sticking around, unfortunately, he chose a different option. -- Avi (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. -- Avi (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible I could return to editing from Polargeo (talk · contribs). I now edit under User:Polargeo 2 but I am the same user as arbcom recognise. I am not asking for my admin permissions back just a joined up link to my main editing account and a recognition I am that user. I will provide whatever information is necessary to justify this. Polargeo (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain I scrambled my password to Polargeo. Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is technically possible with reasonable effort, I see no objection to do it. This editor should edit from only one account, but it makes no difference whether it's called "Polargeo" or "Polargeo 2". Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing bureaucrats could do is rename Polargeo to something else and Polargeo 2 (talk · contribs) to Polargeo (talk · contribs). I've heard of developers helping with password resets for accounts with no email set, but I'm not sure if that occurs anymore. –xeno^talk 13:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Xeno is correct. For you to return to editing as Polargeo, we would rename Polargeo as Polargeo-old (or something like that), and then rename Polargeo 2 to Polargeo. Wikipedia does not allow for combining accounts, and once a password is scrambled, there is no way to access the account. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, to reiterate, we can rename your "Polargeo 2" account to "Polargeo". In doing so, however, we need to rename the current "Polargeo" account to another name. What name would you like it to be? It should probably be something with the word "Polargeo" in it. "Polargeo 2" is possible, but will entail more work. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe it is possible to regain access to an old account, even with password scrambled and no e-mail, but a developer needs to be involved, so this is done only for very sincere requests by longstanding contributors. I think this one qualifies, but it's not my call. There is also the issue of proving one's identity, but I don't think that will be an issue here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned ownership of the two accounts isn't in dispute. My only reservation would be that if the rename to Polargeo goes ahead, various alternate accounts would need redirecting to Polargeo from Polargeo 2.  Roger ^talk 07:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will continue to edit as Polargeo 2 as this seems easiest. Polargeo (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Any crats with a backbone and wide (non-slopey) shoulders around?".

Anyone fancy tackling the overspill from various recent ARBCOM issues that are affecting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick at the moment? Opposes with no rationale are normally the province of the bureaucrat team. Some input before it gets too nasty might help. Cheers chaps. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just ignore it. If anyone, even a crat, starts removing or indenting !votes like that now, it's more likely to ignite further drama. Watch it for now and only act if it's likely to be more beneficial than not acting. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Indenting / removing would be the last thing on my mind. Whether or not the comments add value to the discussion, and therefore will affect the outcome, is another thing entirely. For my money I'd love to hear some input from WJB and Deskana (alas unlikely) as two 'crats who in the "good old days" would readily stand up to this kind of overspill, and treat it for what it's worth. I've no real interest in this (although I supported the RFA) but.... well..... whatever I guess. Would just be nice to see a firmer hand at RFA and only the 'crats have a (admitedly vague) mandate in this regard. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this more of an WP:AE issue (i.e. for administrators to address)? –xeno^talk 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. Incredible you think it is really. Wow - Xeno. Look at that 45 degree angle on the shoulders.Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The editors appear to be engaging in battleground behaviour and skirting around the edges of a topic ban. What am I missing? –xeno^talk 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Positions offered without a rationale will be weighted accordingly. –xeno^talk 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Which means? Weighed high? Low? Not at all? "Accordingly" - according to what? Cheese? The Oracle? Quantum fluctuations as described by M-theory? The price of onions in Tesco? I did mention backbone in the section header Xeno.... Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get like that. Opposes (or supports, for that matter) with no rationale will be weighted as per WP:JUSTAVOTE. As you must surely know. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 22:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It means we'll weight them as one would expect a rationale with no reason to be weighted. (X! · talk)  · @966  ·  22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'd have us do here that wouldn't result in claims of censorship. In a zero-sum game, the only solution is not to play. –xeno^talk 22:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, complex stuff guys, I appreciate, but stick your cock on the block mate. A straight answer. Not much to ask is it? What weight to these comments have? Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As close to zero as makes no odds. –xeno^talk 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC) To expand on this, a bare 'oppose' gives the closing bureaucrat absolutely nothing to go on. Participants should assume the closing bureaucrat has no familiarity whatsoever with the climate change case and provide an appropriate rationale, rather than expecting the closer to do hours of research to try and figure out what about the candidate's behaviour the participant considers problematic. –xeno^talk 18:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And if they substantiated their claims? Would you block them? NW (Talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't, no. Though I don't speak for those who patrol AE, nor do I have more than a passing familiarity with the background. –xeno^talk 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) Look, I'll justify my vote if you're threatening to un-person me. However, when I'm blocked for it, I'm going to ask that one, or all, of you who are threatening to unperson me unblock me - and do so repeatedly, and if that means you lose your bits, you suck it up and deal. I don't know why I need to risk being banned to make my comment count, while you don't have to do anything. I get that I voted against your wikifriend, and so that means it's time to have a fight, but honestly, what do you expect me to do? Hipocrite (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

An RfA runs for 7 days. In that time, you don't think it would be possible to work with the arbs (by mail, let's say, to reduce potential drama) in order to find a way to positively express what you would like to express without it potentially contributing further to further drama or even disruption?

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I would think that this would be easily resolvable? - jc37 23:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't do backroom deals. If you want to ask the arbs to request that I provide diffs related to a topic area I am banned from discussing broadly and anywhere then feel free. I notice you are an admin - if you pledge to repeatedly unblock me without fail if I am blocked for providing such diffs, I will do so on your request. I have no desire, however, to be released from my topic ban, nor do I have a desire to look at climate change articles again. I provided a non-climate change related reason for opposing an RFA - and supporters of that RFA immediately brought out the big guns. I should also note that my commenting in an RFA is not unique to this individual - I have opposed other RFA's recently, including Access Denied, Alansohn, Utahraptor, and Ling.Nut. In fact, I used almost identical language to oppose Ling.Nut - [16]. I oppose many RFA's - this one is not unique or special. I am very rarely asked to justify or defend my position, and when I am, I almost always do ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alansohn_2&diff=prev&oldid=393483761). I see no reason why my vote should be discounted, or why it should be assumed that I'm continuing a battleground by stating that someone is not trustworthy in a venu where people are asked to comment on if people are trustworthy - except, of course, I voted against peoples wikifriend. Hipocrite (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "backroom deal".

If a person is topic banned, with one of the reasons being "disruption", I don't think it's out of line for someone else to help moderate or arbitrate (in its more general sense) for/with that person in certain instances which could be considered borderline, or tangently associated with said topic ban, in order to help that person positively communicate. (With the goal of avoiding further disruption.) Especially if sanctions are involved, asking the arbs for their insight/help, would, I think, be fully within the spirit of things.

As it stands now, intentional or not, in this instance, the "votes" may come across POINTy, though I don't doubt that you see that already, hence your comments above. - jc37 23:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not topic banned from RFA. I am not interaction banned from any other editor. At no point was I found guilty of disrupting RFA, or of stalking or harassing or needling people outside of one very limited topic which I no longer participate in. If you'd like to moderate or arbitrate, feel free to go right ahead and request that I be permitted to break my topic ban, and then request that I actually break my topic ban. If you want to ask anyone anything, feel free to ask them whatever you want. If you think I'm having a problem positively communicating (though it's shockingly condescending for you to say that about me - thanks so much!) please feel free to discuss on my talk page how I could more positively communicate. If I didn't have a track record of only opposing RFAs, and opposing many recent RFAs, I can see why someone who was offended that I opposed the RFA of their friend would find my opposition pointy, sure. It's not at all clear what your ideal outcome is at this point - my ideal outcome, to be clear, is that it is made clear that my vote will be counted as valid, my objection noted, and my technical inability to provide substantiation will be ignored based on my track record of opposing multiple RFAs and the fact that none of you are willing to take the risk you are asking me to take. Hipocrite (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"If you think I'm having a problem positively communicating (though it's shockingly condescending for you to say that about me - thanks so much!)" - I actually wasn't making that distinction. ARBCOM apparently did, else there wouldn't be a topic ban, I presume?

You're presuming that I'm not presuming good faith of your comments. Personally, I think that RfA is about trust - you have expressed you don't trust the individual. And it's been intimated that that lack of trust is at least partially due to the past, and which potentially resides, in an area possibly related to your topic ban. And the typical expectation on RfA is that the lack of trust be supported with your reasoning why. And you would like to avoid posting that because it may violate your topic ban.

With that in mind, I would think treading softly, and asking for help, would be the way to go.

So I'm not asking you to take any risk, quite the contrary, my suggestion would (imho) help minimise your "risk" (as you put it). - jc37 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok - "Help. I'd like to have my votes at RFA count, but I'd also like to avoid being further sanctioned for violating a topic ban that I have zero desire to violate - in fact, I'm only standing up for my vote begrudgingly, out of principal, because it's obvious that this RFA is going to succeed, and because going back to the topic area that I am desperately trying to avoid is unfun, and still further, it is becoming more and more obvious that by standing up for my democraticesque rights here, totally unrelated to the area I was topic banned in, I'm making it even less and less likely that I'll ever get out from under my topic ban - which I want to do not so that I can contribute in the space, but merely to clear my scarlet letter. Further, pursuant to my topic ban, I'm not allowed to ask that my topic ban be modified for another 5 months. So, you've asked that I do things - petition that my topic ban be changed, for example, that I'm not allowed to do pursuant to my topic ban. Now, taking all of this into account, what do you suggest that I do, exactly?" Hipocrite (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Send an email to: arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org.

In it, inform them of what you would like to express in this instance, and go from there.

At that point, they will have several options, and whatever they decide, and however they help resolve this instance, I would presume they will convey that to you.

And since this is time sensitive, I would suggest noting that in the email. If there is no timely response, then that can be assessed at that point. - jc37 00:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can do that without violating my topic ban. "Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban ... modified ... Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case." Hipocrite (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In this instance (at least at this point) you're not asking them to modify it. You're asking for their input regarding: whether posting such-n-such info would violate the topic ban, and if it does, is there a way to present it that wouldn't. And more generally, how (and if, for that matter) they feel (in their estimation) you can contribute to this particular RfA, and under what circumstances (if any) your "vote" may count. - jc37 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As you provided at least provided something to go on, I'm not sure to what extend the original post applied to your position. I've drawn the committee's attention to this thread via the mailing list. –xeno^talk 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what you say now, Xeno. Why would you have alerted me of this thread on a noticeboard I don't think I've ever commented on (certainly not recently) on my talk page, if you weren't previously asking that my comment be discounted due to my failure to respond to requests by people that I take actions that I both had no desire to take and that I was not permitted to take? I'm trying to assume good faith - could you explain what avenue I'm missing, here? Hipocrite (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I notified you to err on the side of caution. As I said, I'm not sure if Pedro was talking about just #1 and #3 or if yours was also of concern. –xeno^talk 23:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had failed to see that avenue. I'm glad that at least one active crat things my comment was not invalidated by my technical inability to provide substantiating diffs. Hipocrite (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, would you be averse to emailing your substantiation to me or an uninvolved editor of your choice and I or they can make a note of it in the discussion section. Also, if you get blocked (as long as you stick to making your point without being disruptive), I'll unblock you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You suggest that you would proxy for a banned user - I can't let you do that unless you are aware that it is a blockable offense - and that if you do it, I'll report you to AE myself. You are stating that if I am blocked for substantiating my claim, you will repeatedly unblock me, until such time as you are stripped of your bit or your unblock stands? If you are, I'll substantiate my claim post haste. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's what it takes to have all the facts out in the open at RfA, yes, because it would be easier for me to fight to keep or regain my bit than to seek the removal of the bit from someone who turned out to be unsuited to adminship. I reserve comment on the legitimacy of your complaint, but let's hear it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians do not need to have a rationale behind their opposition or support of an RfA candidate. It is acceptable for an editor to simply state that (s)he opposes the candidate or to say, without evidence, that (s)he doesn't trust the candidate. Obviously, stances that provide some evidence will carry more weight and any stances that are fraudulent or unfounded may be discounted by the bureaucrats. I don't see a fire here. And I won't participate in fanning one. By asking editors you think have ulterior motives to explain themselves, you're taking bait...or maybe you're laying bait. SoWhy is right: just ignore it. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as somewhat empty of meaning. You first state that Wikipedians don't need to provide a rationale for their opposition. Then you state that bureaucrats will discount any stances that are "unfounded". Of course, a flat "oppose" with no rationale is considered "unfounded". So you're saying that people don't need to provide a rationale, as long as they don't mind their input being discarded? I don't quite understand. MastCell ^Talk 01:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me elaborate. A stance without rationale is not an unfounded stance. Claiming that a candidate has never participated in AIV when it is clear that the candidate has, that is unfounded. Unfounded in this regard means that the claim has no basis in facts. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps encryption techniques can be used here. If Hipocrite posts an RSA encoded motivation for his vote that only the closing Admin can read, that would solve the problem. You can imagine that ArbCom produces the encoding and decoding keys. The encoding key is made public so the topic banned editors can use it. When encountering encoded messages, the closing Admin sends a request to decode the messages to ArbCom. Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think my position is pretty close to Kingturtle's. An oppose does not have to have a rationale, but as a bureaucrat, when I sit down to read over the opposition, it certainly helps me understand where someone is coming from if they supply one. (Note that "understand where someone is coming from" doesn't automatically mean that they get more weight. If someone opposes and gives a frivolous reason, I would give their position less heed) At the same time, I take a dim view of people hectoring other people over their RFA comments. And from where I am sitting, that seems to be exactly what is happening in spades at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick and in this thread as well. I'm sympathetic to the people who are prohibited by arbcom ruling from sharing their opinions. Raul654 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to emphasize that the above comment re: hectoring was posted before I saw this bit of dickishness. Raul654 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably about as dickish as claiming advanced rights on your userpage that had been removed eh Raul? And not removing the claims despite requests? What a high standard you really do deliver. I'm sure your above comment really helped advance this debate, just as much as this comment does - i.e. not at all. Pedro :  Chat  07:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a not-so-small difference between being lacsidasical about updating one's userpage and intentionally going out of one's way to disrupt RFA and disrespect other editors. Not to mention starting to canvas for bureaucrats to close an RFA the way you want - now that would be a REAL dick move. But who would do that sort of thing? Raul654 (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOBY --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my own support of what other crats have said that opposes without rationale are given less weight than those that do. This is not a mathematical equation, as is obvious when you remember that we have always rejected the idea that RfX should be about simple vote-counting.

Hipocrite (and anyone) is entitled to oppose without reason, or for bad reason, or for factually incorrect reason, without the !vote being removed or indented. But, equally, such comments can be challenged, although the fine line between challenge and badgering is often crossed.

Opposers without rationale also miss the opportunity to sway the debate - many RfX contributors read the other opinions, as the frequent switching of opinions suggests. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a limit as to what is acceptable for witless votes though, e.g. DougsTech (talk · contribs). Tarc (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All of these positions are fair. But the end result is simple: encouraging people to make their vote as strong as they wish so that the best community consensus will be established will result in Hipocrite/WMC being blocked. Dweller, if Hipocrite were blocked for expanding his rationale, would you unblock him immediately? NW (Talk) 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

With the "how" such posting may be done being rather important in such a determination, asking any admin whether they would or wouldn't use the tools seems a pointless exercise. And imho, really isn't helpful, and honestly just comes across as an attempt at "baiting"... - jc37 16:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a leading question. Every bureaucrat besides Kingturtle has essentially said the same thing: WMC and Hipocrite's votes will not count because they don't substantiate their position. If they try to substantiate it, they will be blocked. Do you see a problem with that? I do too. I am not suggesting that the opposes be counted as is; I am saying that assurances should be made to Hipocrite and WMC that they will not be blocked for voting properly in this RFA. NW (Talk) 18:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And in my opinion, the way to determine that would be some sort of request for clarification to the arbs. Since they set the topic ban, I would presume that something like this should be clarified by them, so that AE can be fairly administered as appropriate (read that as: if necessary). - jc37 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is just about the dumbest discussion I have ever seen on wikipedia. I am quite utterly disgusted with some comments by editors telling us exactly how they will judge these opposes. If you throw these opposes out please feel free to throw my support out and those of any editors who support per me. Oh and also throw out the supports of any other topic banned editors who obviously are only supporting Sphilbrick because they have recieved support for their POVs!! Polargeo (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  Though I won't speak for them, in my estimation, it seems to me that the bureaucrats are trying to express what is difficult to express, because it relies on a case by case basis. But they are trying anyway, because addressing a topic is what's done in a discussion, and I'll note that this is the bureaucrats' notice board, so one might expect to see them comment here... - jc37 16:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  A fair point in the defence but if you want to get gritty about it I don't accept that the opposes are effectively nothing because they don't go into vast detail including diffs. If an experienced editor has a valid concern on an issue that could affect the ability of the candidate as an admin then that is a valid oppose. For a crat to say that they value this oppose as next to nothing is, well ...(redacted comment in my own head) Polargeo (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  As I was noting, it's tough to comment in generalities, because this really is a question of case-by-case basis. But I think what is trying to be conveyed is that in this (like most discussions on Wikipedia) comments supported by information (like diffs) will typically receive more "weight" than just bare "votes". And i don't think that that is far out of line. The difficulty is, of course, that RfA is fairly unique on Wikipedia in that it's a hybrid of "voting" and the consensus process. It's a tricky minefield at times, but in most cases that I've seen, the bureaucrats manage to navigate through rather well. - jc37 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  I accept that the bureaucrats manage rather well. However, this may be largely because there are very few contentious cases. I reiterate I don't think claiming to disregard opposes because they are valid but not backed up in triplicate or are from editors who the crat sees as being tainted is managing anything well at all. Do you? Polargeo (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  I may have been unclear above (I've clarified). The participants should assume the closing bureaucrat will have no knowledge of the climate change case. –xeno^talk 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(de-dent) very few contentious cases? Then things have changed at RfA from the past I remember. (I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not - though I suppose that's outside the topic of this thread : ) - And I don't believe I see anyone stating anything about "in triplicate", or whatever. As I said, it's a case-by-case basis. We trust the bureaucrats to use their best judgement. And here they are trying to express, in rather generalised terms, how they do just that. But it's very important to remember that these are very much generalised explanations. - jc37 18:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk

Hipocrite/11/2010#Blocked for one week

As requested by user. Thenub314 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable position

For what it's worth, I disagree with Xeno. To assume that the closing crat will have no knowledge of the climate change case is to assume black is white. The page makes sufficient reference (express and implied) to that fracas and a bureaucrat (including one as inactive as me) would have to be blind not to realise what was going on.
I find the effect of the sanctions on this RfA troubling. It seems to me that the unexplained opposition could mean:

1. This user holds a contrary point of view to me, I do not want people with contrary points of view being admins;
2. This user's strong views in the area in question are such that I believe he will misuse the tool; or
3. Because I believe [rightly or wrongly] that admins harder to block than other users, making this person an admin will assist them in editing controversially

No doubt the opposes could also have other meanings that I haven't divined. But apparently, due to the ArbCom sanctions (which I have yet to study in detail) some participants feel they cannot explain their rationale and provide the usual supporting evidence- diffs etc. This leads to a problem. Were I to close the RfA, I would not know which of the potential arguments above was being advanced. Number 1 is clearly an oppose to which little or now weight should be attached. Number 2 may (or may not - but apparently this cannot be discussed) be alleviated by the candidate's promise not to use the tools in this area.
As bureaucrats have pointed out above, the usual practice is to give unreasoned opposition little, if any, weight. But I am uncomfortable doing so here - and cannot imagine that the consequence of doing so reflects ArbCom's intention. The effect is clearly prejudicial to those wishing to oppose, upon whom their is (again, rightly or wrongly) a greater expectation to provide reasoning. I find the status quo unattractive. As a bureaucrat, I would like users not to be prevented in any way from explaining their reasons for opposing (or supporting) as clearly as possible, provided they do so in a civil manner. I don't like the obstacle that currently exists to this happening on this RfA. I think those opposing should have the opportunity to explain why their opposition is not of the type set out at #1 above, rather than risk having this assumed. If paperwork is needed from ArbCom to enable this, I would be grateful if this could be supplied asap. WJBscribe (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you disagree with me (perhaps I was unclear). My belief is that those opining at RFA should provide relevant backup to their position, including links to diffs or conversations that they find problematic (rather than being vague and invoking a topic ban to justify lack of same). Otherwise they are expecting the closing bureaucrat to review reams and reams of dispute resolution proceedings to try and make their best guess. An exception from the topic ban at RFA (which is what you seem to be suggesting) would allow them to do this. (I see that this is now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Climate Change). –xeno^talk 14:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Xeno, with one addition: people shouldn't be complaining about their vote not being counted when they know full well that the bureaucrats won't give as much weight to it when they give it. If you want them to count, make a reasonable argument. (X! · talk)  · @686  ·  15:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why is it that not one of the Bureaucrats that responded were willing to assert that they would not be blocked for doing just that. NW (Talk) 16:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom as a body (the problem is probably in part in the dynamics between arbitrators) is apparently unable or unwilling to write clearly and unambiguously. (That's the good-faith interpretation. The bad-faith interpretation is that they change their mind after a decision and then simply claim that's what they meant.) Some time ago I explained a specific problem with the CC topic bans and their interpretation. It's now archived under User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 22#Not telling you how to do your job but.

Several editors who are scientists, and as such are trained to use language precisely, relied on the plain wording of the topic bans and (at least one; I lost track of some events) got blocked for doing so. As scientists tend to do, they learned from this. Now it appears a lot of bureaucrats are conspiring to disenfranchise them in an RfA for doing so. Not a good thing at all.

By the way, this incident has made me aware of another potential problem: Can I please have confirmation that support votes with justifications such as "yes" or "no concerns" or "I can't see any reason to oppose; best of luck" are discounted in the same way as oppose votes of the type "no" or "no admin material" or "I can't see any reason to support; good riddance". Hans Adler 17:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally at RFA simply signing ones support is interpreted as shorthand for per nomination. Opposes without any rationale are not the equivalent, as non-one but the !voter knows what they mean. But then in most respects things are stacked for the oppose as their !votes are worth almost three times that of a support. Though I can see that causing the crats difficulty on this one. ϢereSpielChequers 17:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense. If a "yes" vote is considered the equivalent of "per nomination", then equally a "no" vote should be considered the equivalent of "I do not agree with the nomination". There is no logical reason why an opposer should be required to spell out why they don't agree with a nomination when there is no corresponding requirement for supporters to say why they agree with the nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the nomination hopefully makes a case for entrusting someone with the mop, but until someone posits an oppose case there is no stated reason for opposing. Once someone has opposed then others can oppose per their rationale, but until that happens any oppose without a rationale leaves one wondering why they disagree with the nomination. ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

But why does it matter why someone chooses to oppose? You can have no idea why someone who simply votes "yes" in the support column chose to support, so logic would seem to dictate that if opposes without rationales are discounted then so should supports without rationales. Why make assumptions about supports but not about opposes? Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there is no default rationale for opposing specific to that candidate; no rebuttal for the nomination statement. Skomorokh 18:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a default rationale isn't the point. A "yes" vote could just as easily be interpreted as "this editor is my friend, and we planned this nomination on IRC". To assume that every support without a rationale is a default "I agree with the nomination statement" is, well, strange. But in fact there is a default rationale, it's "I do not agree with the nomination statement". Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A little strange, and I don't entirely buy it myself, but it is more plausible than arguing that unexplained supports/opposes are of equivalent standing. The default support has a case to back up its rationale (the argument within the nom); your proposed default oppose wouldn't have any stated case. Outside of viewing the RfA as a straight vote, I wonder how you would suggest weighing the strength of unexplained opposes at much more than zero. What would you do in that position? Skomorokh 18:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest being honest, and admitting that except in very exceptional circumstances RfA is a vote. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The lack of need for justifying support is in part a holdover from the era when adminship was "no big deal," so that the default was to presume someone was suitable unless there was a good reason to believe otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting that bureaucrats are "conspiring" to disenranchise anyone is unnecessary and inflammatory (not to mention entirely off- base)

A potential (thought suboptimal) solution would be for the topic banned participants to provide their rationale via the mailing list; a digest would need to be prepared for unsubscribed bureaucrats. –xeno^talk 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One may comment "freely", but only to authorized recipients? Who may, or may not, suppress it? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remember the bureaucrats did not place these topic bans. I'm merely suggesting how the participants might expand on their objections to the candidate without violating the ban. Your objection to the ban is malplaced here. –xeno^talk 19:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, to say that Hipocrite has filed a combined clarification/amendment on the subject of topic-banned editors commenting at RFAs, obviously with this one in mind. Input is welcome. As Hans Adler (in particular) has commented on the inadequacy of the previous language for addressing scientists, perhaps he might care to draft something for consideration?  Roger ^talk 18:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but this is a very tricky situation. If I can think of a good solution I will make a proposal, but I think that's not very likely. In my opinion the topic banned editors should stay mostly off the topic even on RfAs and avoid presenting themselves as martyrs (I can fully understand Scott's reaction, although it came at a time when the bureaucrats' reaction had basically justified them retroactively). Conversely, it should be absolutely clear that the bureaucrats can't act according to the principle: the closer you go to the bounds of your topic ban, or the further you transgress it, the more weight your vote will have. This is just common sense, and I would normally have thought that this goes without saying. But now that it's clear the bureaucrats as a whole don't agree, I have no idea to fix it. The trust is gone, and since we can't know what really goes on in the mind of someone who closes an RfA, there isn't much we can do about it. Hans Adler 20:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)