Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Could a 'crat please remove my admin rights?  -- Lear's Fool 08:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much for all your work as an administrator. WJBscribe (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest we endeavour to provide a permanent link or diff to removal requests when fulfilling? –xeno^talk 12:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Desysop Jinian".

Last edit was December 26, 2009. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi NYMets2000, while it is true Jinian's last edit was in December of 2009, he has been performing admin actions since then, and actually was desysopped briefly but had adminship given back. Acalamari 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Not done; user's last log action was less than one year ago. –xeno^talk 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a semi-related ANI thread regarding the OP of this section. WP:ANI#Boomerang: NYMets2000 and WP:CIR. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While it may be a moot point given the activity in less then 12 months, I would point out for future reference Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators clearly says you're supposed to notify the admin 1 month and then a few days before requesting the desysopping Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That too =) –xeno^talk 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, by the way, if anyone knows this language, perhaps they could update the script so that it looks at logged actions as well. (see also: [1]) –xeno^talk 18:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a shell script for the Bourne Again SHell, but I could be missing something. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture

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

No edits since spring 2008. --70.179.163.168 (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your point? They aren't an admin. AD 10:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed their administrative permissions were removed in July by stewards (see notification). –xeno^talk 12:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a working link. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mine didn't work for you? –xeno^talk 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It says 18:09, 31 July 2011 Matanya (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Matanya@mediawikiwiki from CheckUser and administrator to administrator ‎ (done) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's really weird, it works for me. –xeno^talk 13:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What's also weird is that your (Xeno's) link works at the secure Meta page, but I get the same result as DoRD if I use the normal Meta page. It has something to do with how MediaWiki or the web browser interprets the @ in html format (%40, but translated to %2540), because 1) the "Title" part is empty, and 2) when I changed %40 to @, it worked. HeyMid (contribs) 13:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for testing. That explains it, as I get to it thru secure link. –xeno^talk 13:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A question to be raised at VPT, I think. Don't have time at the moment, though. Heymid, would you like to? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I just found the actual problem: you accidentally used "wikipedia" instead of "wikimedia, so you wrote "meta.wikipedia.org". Apparently a bug in the MediWiki software adds "25" before whatever is written after the % symbol (in the link), making the "Title" box empty. I've started a VPT thread at WP:VPT#Symbols in html links changed when typing "wikipedia" instead of "wikimedia"; I did my best to explain what's going on. HeyMid (contribs) 13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good eye - fixed - I think this is probably an issue with user:js/urldecoder.js, then. –xeno^talk 14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

user:gfkdgj8s8s56s70kfjdklj (formerly user:Colourlines, see Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Colourlines → gfkdgj8s8s56s70kfjdklj) appears to be trying to vanish, but is going about it in a rather public way. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadez and linked MfDs.

Please could a bureaucrat either correctly vanish him or advise on what we should be doing. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please could someone update WP:FORMER accordingly. Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a procedural note, [[WP:INACTIVITY]] says "The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month prior to the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping would go into effect." (bolding mine) Looking at some of their talk pages they were notified on 9 August, less than 1 month ago, and there has been no subsequent notification. GB fan please review my editing 11:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Not sure what the "several days before" bit achieves, but as you say it does say "must". Needless to say, any of these users may have the rights back (both in the next "several days" and indeed at any point) should they so request. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. On reflection, I am going to revert my removal of these permissions. I think it's worth getting this right. In particular, I currently have no way of knowing if email notifications have been sent, and if so, to which users. So please:

1. Could I have confirmation that in addition to the user talk messages, emails were set to the users listed above one month ago?
2. Could someone please notify these accounts that their rights will be removed within the next "several days", by talkpage message and by email (again, with confirmation that email notifications have been sent)?

Many thanks. WJBscribe (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reversing your action, but I still have to wonder: why do people keep requesting and carrying out bit removal prior to the requirements being met? The requirements are clearly spelled out (and linked to in the original request).

Anyhow - except for Amberrock (whose last contribution was a deleted edit in October 2010) - they've already been emailed twice [2]. Talk page notes will be sent shortly.

The situation with inactive administrators is under control and further BN noticeboard requests from well-meaning users who have not closely examined the relevant policy are not required. –xeno^talk 13:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

May I, as a non-crat, suggest that the whole procedure is delegated to a dedicated subpage, where all those requirements are listed in an easy to maintain table (possibly by a bot)? That way mistakes by crats, duplicate work and notifications by users can all be avoided. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Hersfold (talk · contribs) is working on a bot to handle notifications and then make a posting here once a month (see here). –xeno^talk 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but my point was to keep a record of such proceedings on a dedicated page, that would allow record when a notification was posted / email was sent (with a diff), the last recorded edit and log action and when the bit was removed. Whether that page is then updated by a crat manually or a bot is not important. I'm pretty sure the bot can be written to post a link to the notification it posted. Regards SoWhy 13:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all good ideas - the bot should keep an onwiki log page. –xeno^talk 13:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

When removing administrator privileges for inactivity, please endeavour to provide a link to the relevant policy. –xeno^talk 13:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have found that the return rate of administrators when they were given sufficient notification versus when they were not has been favourable. So far 6 of the users who were notified on August 9 returned to editing [3]; which seems significant compared to the number who returned after being summarily desysopped (keeping in mind those desysopped out of process in July were, on average, inactive for a longer period). So I would like to continue to be extra careful to give these folks lots of notice, and stick to protocol. I emailed them yesterday noting that they must return before 9 September 2011 [4] and just delivered the several day notice [5]. –xeno^talk 14:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further to suggestion of SoWhy above, I've placed a log at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators for better coordination of this procedure. –xeno^talk 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to start anything, but I think it defeats the purpose of removing inactive admins if we count one who made a single deleted edit 11 months ago as "active". Juliancolton (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The procedure I am currently using is to notify the inactive administrator on the first day of the month in which they will fall inactive. I don't see a need to desysop previous dedicated volunteers on the 365th day after they become inactive. –xeno^talk 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the fuss I caused. I didn't know you were already taken care of it. I won't request such removals anymore on enwiki. Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I know you meant well. And now we have a central page to coordinate this so we can all ensure requirements are met. –xeno^talk 16:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making that page, Xeno. So, according to that page we have eight admins a month falling off the map (nine in July, eight in August, seven in September). (That's as of one year ago; whether the rate has changed since then only time will tell.) We're not making up those numbers. It not anything the buros (or anyone) can do anything about, but it does make one go "hunh". Herostratus (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pedantically, we lost those admins 12, 11 and 10 months ago. As this page proves, some of them do come back, but I do accept your unspoken point which is that we're losing admins far faster than we are gaining. Are the admin task backlogs enormous? --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Are the size of backlogs the best way to judge admin under-staffing? It might be that half the number of admins can perform the same number of speedy deletions by considering each candidate for deletion for half as much time. Shame if that's what's happening, though it may not be - just a thought. I'd rather have far too many admins than only enough to keep the backlogs under control. WJBscribe (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you read more into my question than was actually there. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment that I'm working on a bot - I'm actually not at present, I'm currently a bit bogged up with real life issues. I hope to have something up and running by the end of October, but that's just a guess at this point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2011#September 2011

In accordance with Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators, I have procedurally removed the administrative permissions of the 18 users [6] listed here after ensuring they were duly notified. These users may request restoration of permissions on this noticeboard per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions. –xeno^talk 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The bot was recently approved (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot). It would be nice to receive a flag so I can start with the task. Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. WJBscribe (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the discussion and note on my page by a few weeks, or I would have objected to the flag change.

I was still using some sysop abilities since taking an (albeit unannounced, informal) indefinite break, although rarely and only for informational purposes.

But that may change and I never rule out coming back in whatever active capacity. Meantime, I'd like things to go back to normal for me.

All the best and much love to all my friends (sorry if any of you felt let down by my inactivity), El_C 12:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 15:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Would a really, really lovely bureaucrat do me a massive favour and expedite my WP:CHU/S request for me? I'm so sorry to clamour in such an annoying fashion, but it's kind of important for me, as you'll see from the request. In advance, a thousand thanks. (Note I've just changed my sig for now; the new username remains unregistered.) --Tristessa de St Ange (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by Xero -- many, many thanks. --Tristessa de St Ange (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), who has not edited since May, has sadly been reported as having recently passed away by an editor who knew him and his wife: [7]. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Done . -- Avi (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Could the admin category be removed? I would, but I can't figure out a more elegant way to do it besides subst'ing the template. --Rschen7754 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
      • |cat=no. T. Canens (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that User:Vaoverland has been gone for a while so someone should probably also look at removing his sysop as well. - User talk:Kumioko) 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

He was already desysopped. --Rschen7754 02:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. I noticed he was still showing in Category:Wikipedia Administrators and thought he still had it. --Kumioko (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because of the userbox. Someone with the tools to do so should subst: the userbox and remove the categorization, that way the aesthetic is not affected.--Cerejota (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just add the |nocat= switch to the template. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

All set... Thanks. –xeno^talk 20:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As Vaoverland's user page states that the user in question is deceased, shouldn't the category be removed from the user page altogether rather than just hidden in the rendering? I don't think the user will be resysopped. HeyMid (contribs) 21:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Prefer to keep it as close to original as possible. –xeno^talk 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate to pester about this seeing as I already asked Nihonjoe, but my alternate account rename request seems to be taking a really long time to actually complete itself. How much longer might it take for the rename to actually occur? Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is perhaps fixed by now, or perhaps you can explain more what's wrong with the rename? –xeno^talk 20:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it seems to be fixed now, thanks to Maxim. I have no idea what was up with it before, though. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it wasn't actually done before. It was marked as done but not fulfilled. –xeno^talk 13:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd, must have gotten distracted in the middle of the rename and thought I had completed it. Well, at least it's completed now. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's about 20 infinitely block bots that still are in the bot usergroup. Could someone could do an 'unbotting' of these, found at Wikipedia:Database reports/Blocked users in user groups (all others on the list have been resolved). Thanks... Skier Dude (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that be a bad idea for bots that may be fixed and then unblocked? --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Personally I don't understand why API-only bots need to be blocked... In any case, read-only bots should not have their flags removed (though they could probably be safely unblocked) –xeno^talk 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. I'm not sure why these are blocked. Maybe Matthew could explain the reason behind the blocks? WJBscribe (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Also, is there some reason Addihockey10 (talk · contribs) and Codf1977 (talk · contribs) listed multiple times each? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  Users with multiple rights seem to have multiple rows. –xeno^talk 16:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the bot op appeared to be of moderate skill and there was a question in my mind if they would ever turn on their bot's editing feature without seeking a new BRFA and showing editing skill. That said, I recognize it is a remote risk and wouldn't object to unblocking. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and unblocked the ones that were read-only [8] to clear them from the report. No prejudice to reblocking if they run amok or start editing without further brfa. –xeno^talk 01:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) has been done for a long time now and there is no reason for it to have a bot flag. If someone could remove the bot status, I would appreciate it. hare j 06:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm no longer active on enwiki, so for good measure I figure I might as well formally hang up my hat. Requesting removal of sysop bit, please. Thanks :) Fran Rogers (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - thank you for your service. Please let me know if you'd like any other userrights added or removed (e.g. efm). Best regards, –xeno^talk 18:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been inactive for some time -- apparently long enough that the community finally passed that proposal to remove +sysop from inactive accounts! From a glance at the procedure description, this seems like the place to ask. I'd planned on waiting a bit longer, but enough people have mentioned it that I'm feeling motivated to do it now.

So... can has mop? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done; welcome back =) –xeno^talk 01:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Maxim (which is hte right thing to do IMO)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Dearest bureaucrats, I wish to be re-administratified if that's possible. Certain real-life events have kept me from being able to edit for a while, but I wish to remain an admin for the rare occasion I'm able. I trust this won't be too controversial. But my, my, my how times have changed. I am proud of the fact that I once had the 3rd highest supported RFA; now I am all the way down to 34th. I guess that just means we've had some great editors come along since my hayday. I guess that's a good sign. :-) Thank you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this users resopping - he isn't contributing at all and he has made one admin action in the last five years See the users logs- resopping is of no benefit at all to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean "resysopping" rather than "resopping" (which would mean something entirely different). That said, inactivity is not a reason to prevent resysopping per policy. If you want to change policy to require someone be very active in order to be resysopped, then feel free to start a discussion. I'm not seeing any policy-based reason for denying this request (at least at first glance). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "opposing" per se, but I've noticed from his contributions that this is the second time the user has returned from an 18-month absence specifically to comment on a matter related to his retention of the tools. The first was here. This is more a comment on the point of having a resysop procedure which is automatic, than on the merits of this particular user. —WFC— 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This would lend itself toward the thinking that Lord Voldemort is only seeking the hat and not really interested in helping the project. Again, not a policy-based reason for denying the resysop, but definitely worth taking into consideration. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy-based reason for denying the tools to any returnee to my knowledge (which was my point). Although if I were the crat making the decision, I would probably check the contents of the last page he deleted, purely because of the title. —WFC— 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of the page he last deleted, I can tell you that it wasn't created by him despite being in his user space, and the title was pretty much tongue-in-cheek given the contents. There was no malicious content at all there as far as I can tell. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If I'm recalling correctly, that was a subpage that someone else had made, and I didn't want it. Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. —WFC— 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy-based reason to deny adminship; however, I don't see any policy-based reason for granting it either. This is an admin who has been mostly absent since 2006 and I honestly cannot see what net positive there is in granting the tools whilst they are inactive. Perhaps bureaucrats should not grant yet but after a month or so of sustained editing. Otherwise, the bit will be regranted, removed again in a year, and we'll be back to square 1 again. Seems a waste of time to me.

I notice a recent requester - inactive for nine years hasn't edited since making the request here. It's a good thing bureaucrats used their common sense rather than blindly following policy in that case.

I'm not suggesting that Lord V will make a bad admin, but the whole point of the policy is to remove inactive admins. There is no obligation for bureaucrats to reinstate rights immediately. No harm in waiting whatsoever - Lord V managed fine for 5 years hardly using admin rights, so I'm sure there won't be a problem in waiting a while. AD 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort might be asked to confirm his identity, as in a the recent case of User:LC. Our policy does not seem to give bureaucrats any discretion about the return of an admin who was desysopped only for inactivity, since by definition they did not resign under a cloud. The deleted page mentioned above by WFC seems to be a joke page, not an actual enemies list. It was created by another user and was never edited by LV himself. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How would I go about confirming my identity? Shall I email you from my LordBishopVoldemort email account? Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and comments, AD, but I can't help but to disagree here. (Sheesh, give me some time away from the encyclopedia, and basically the first thing I do when back is have a disagreement.) :-) I was told that, "This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way." Also, "This desysopping is not to be considered... a reflection on the user's ... rights to... the admin tools." In addition, "If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." So, while the policy states that there is no good reason to deny me to tools again, it does also state that I may be resysopped without discussion since I have no issues with my identity, and am still in good standing (at least I hope so). Maybe I'm rules lawyering a bit, but somehow I do feel as if a refusal is a negative reflection on me.

On a side note, I must say I'm a little disappointed that this is even a debate. This is supposed to be one of those "uncontroversial" cases. By asking for my tools back, it is prima facie evidence (pouring one out for kmweber) that I'm not inactive. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It says they may regrant rights, not must. So there is some sort of leeway here; they aren't obliged to do anything immediately. And it's not evidence of activity - evidence would be sustained over at least a month, not just the edits regarding regranting. No one is saying this request should be denied - only that it could be left for a while - there is no hurry whatsoever to regrant rights. You've gone awol in the past on more than one occasion, so who is to say that you will be regranted rights now, not edit for another year, and end up back here next year? As I say, it's wasting people's time if you aren't going to be here. AD 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably because "must" is a mandate, which have no place in volunteer organizations. "AWOL" is also out of place because there is no requirement to request leave time from the project. –xeno^talk 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• The community-developed policy for restoration of permissions after removal for inactivity will not be changed with discussion here: users who feel that it should be more strict should initiate another RFC.

  The administrative tools were removed from Lord Voldemort without due process, and they should be restored without delay (so long as their identity is not in question) per WP:RESYSOP. –xeno^talk 17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No part of the policy states they should be resysopped "without delay". There is no rush here. AD 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"without further discussion". –xeno^talk 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you are misreading the statement... by omiting the precursor to those words, you change it. "may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion" does not mean that there is a rush to do so. It says the 'crat has the right to do so immediately, not that the 'crat has to do so immediately. That being said, there is a clear difference between LV and the guy who hadn't edited in 9 years. Less than 2 is significantly less than 9. I think LV is explicitly the type of sysop the community was thinking of when it instituted the policy, thus I see no grounds for denying his restoration.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, "without delay" does not mean one should rush. I'm fairly sure the spirit of the policy is such that the rights are meant to be restored upon request without undue delay (i.e. no more of a delay than the one suggested by WP:RESYSOP #3) - it is certainly not within the spirit of the policy for bureaucrats to decide to ask a person to "go off and edit actively for a month" before they will restore the rights. –xeno^talk 19:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of the policy is to keep the number of inactive admins down. It is extremely clear that the policy as it stands is completely pointless if bureaucrats insist on readminning inactive users, which is against the spirit of the policy. If bureaucrats here insist there should be no discussion before regranting rights, why are they having one here? It does sadden me that bureaucrats feel there is some sort of urgency in regranting rights. The policy definitely needs making stricter, because right now it serves no purpose at all. As things stand, editors can come back here once a year just to "sign on" and somehow that makes them active. It makes no sense at all for it to be so simple to have rights regranted because we may as well not bother removing them in the first place. AD 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you must go ask the community to make it stricter. It is not the bureaucrats that "insist there should be no discussion", but the community-developed policy. –xeno^talk 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with xeno)

I believe quite a few people pointed out that it was a stupid policy while it was being debated.

Where is the point of the policy defined? What's the problem with inactive administrators? Why do their numbers need to be kept down?

When faced with a stupid policy, it makes sense to evaluate the need for such a policy to exist at all, rather than looking for ways to make it even stupider. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion (and the large red text, that was extremely helpful). But clearly the consensus was that the community wanted to see inactive admins removed - for security reasons, issues of hat-collecting, policy knowledge etc. However, a few who wanted the utterly stupid "admin for life" status quo were enough to keep the policy from being purposeful - i.e. by ensuring inactive admins wouldn't be able to come back here once a year to reclaim their "rights" that they never bother using. AD 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If this policy is to be followed to the letter, why has no one yet resysopped Lord V? I thought there should be no discussion, and yet I see at least two bureaucrats engaging in one. AD 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RESYSOP #3. –xeno^talk 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have restored LV's tools as I do not see any issues with his identity (e.g. edit summaries, same style of writing). Maxim_(talk) 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Maxim. I do apologize for all the ruckus I caused here. Hopefully I'll be able to edit a bit more frequently. Gracias all for your comments and concerns. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lord Voldemort. –xeno^talk 23:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On the basis that Maxim was satisfied regarding the identity of the individual requesting the restoration of his rights, Maxim's action is clearly in keeping with the current policy. If, having seen it operating in practice, the community is dissatisfied with the current policy, then a discussion should be held with a view to changing it - e.g. to require some minimum number of admin actions (as on Commons) or to give bureaucrats discretion in deciding whether the return of the tools is desirable. WJBscribe (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the previous discussion but clearly imo bureaucrat discretion or something like a one month return to contributions or something that at least uses noodles we have been given would be preferable to this current automatic situation - however - as I have seen the community gets easily bored of returning to such discussions - I suggest after a year of this automatic situation we will have some figures/data to return with, as to what happened after the users were given the tools back and the edit history of the returning users after being given the tools back and with that data we can return to the community to seek consensus for a small update/write of the guideline/policy. In the meantime, is it acceptable to make simple comments here when I have an objection to a user being given the tools back? This is useful as it records the objection reasons and the bureaucrats' rejection/acceptance of the objection and their reasons for that.. Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to make such comments, but if your only reason is that you don't like the situation, and you don't or can't give any policy-based reasons why the tools shouldn't be returned, then it's not likely to change the final decision. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - It has quickly become quite clear how this is being interpreted and implemented by the crats' and I don't expect that to change at all without a return to the community. - although I remember there was one similar (inactive user) request seven weeks ago ago that was not granted, the request by User:LC. - Is there a list somewhere of the requests for resysopp that have been granted by the crats since the change in process? Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There's not really a list anywhere. You'd have to look through the archives of this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. I will create and keep a record for evaluation next year. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please set bot flag to User:ArticlesForCreationBot it's separate account for Petan-Bot (already has flag) if any questions let me know Petrb (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done I checked the BRFA, etc., and everything looks good. Maybe you should note on the bot userpage that it's running a task that was originally approved on the Petan-Bot account? Maxim_(talk) 14:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that this has any chance of succeeding - requesting a close of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ankitbhatt 2. Skier Dude (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Any editor can SNOW close a RFA, it doesn't have to be a crat. --Rschen7754 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello this is Kararighe noticing that I need help. I have edit anomnusly since 2009 so I forgot to log on with my main account before, and I want to transfer all my IP countributions to my main account and I think its possible to do it. My IP edits are 1, 2, 3 can a breaucrat possibly do this. If not please explain and my account edits must not be removed. Regards --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it isn't possible for edits from an IP address to be reassigned to an account. This isn't a "we won't" situation, it is one of the software lacks any feature at all to do so. Courcelles 00:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the help --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Aratas Wine. Only one edit but still clearly a promotional name. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This type of report belongs, depending on either the severity of the problem and various other ineffibles, on either WP:UAA ("usernames for administrator attention") or WP:RFC/U) ("requests for comment on usernames"), or perhaps WP:COI/N (the "conflicts of interest noticeboard"). Although where we seem to have a good-faith new editor who just isn't familiar with policies, the best first stop is often just a friendly note on their talkpage&mdash. In any event, bureaucrats are involved with usernames only in the context of changing them; other than that, they don't have any special role to play in connection with new (or for that matter, not-new) users' names.

I apologize for the complexity of this response. Some of our procedures around here have become somewhat (pardon the pun) bureaucratic. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The main reason reports like this should be directed to WP:UAA (or elsewhere) is that by renaming an account, we affect a user's ability to log in. Their old username ceases to exist, and they have to log in with the new name. They don't receive any automatic notification of this, so they effectively can't log in because they no longer know what their username is. Except for usurpations, where we give ample warning, we don't rename any users without their prior consent. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, will put at UAA.PumpkinSky talk 19:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My password management program (Roboform), during a recent update, somehow managed to corrupt my WP password (User:JakeInJoisey) and the stored password is no longer being recognized by WP. Regretfully, in the 6 or so years I have been editing here, I never bothered to enter an e-mail. Is there any assistance to be had in recovering access to my original account? If not, can I somehow usurp my original account name? I was directed to WP:CHU by an admin but I don't appear to qualify under those criteria. Any assistance appreciated. Thanks. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

After some additional reconsideration, it appears that my User:JakeInJoisey account must have somehow been compromised and the password changed. Even if my password program update was corrupted in some fashion, it wouldn't change the password registered with WP. I was successfully accessing my account 2 days ago. Today, WP will no longer recognize that password which I, personally, never changed (in fact, I had to research just how to access the change password function). It seems likely that my password registered with WP was changed...and not by me. Hopefully there can be an equitable resolution. Thanks. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can somehow prove that you are in fact the same person as User:JakeInJoisey there is nothing much anyone can or at least will do, since you could also be someone trying to impersonate this user (not saying that you are but I think you understand that people could easily think so). Unfortunately, there is no e-mail enabled nor a unified account or a committed identity created. If you have any idea how you can prove your ownership of said account, please tell us but if not, I fear there is nothing that can be done. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a ckuser show that both the User:JakeInJoisey and User:JakeInJoisey(2) accounts access WP via the same IP? It is somewhat incomprehensible that a user account can be banned as a sock using ckuser criteria yet cannot be used in support of a user claim to ownership by one who states uncategorically that the account is his. What am I missing here?

Also, would a log exist recording a password change? Thanks. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking, and checkuser does show password resets. Hang on a bit... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed that JakeInJoisey == JakeInJoisey(2). However, I do not see that anyone else ever had access to the original account nor that any attempt was made to change or reset the account's password.

While I am a bureaucrat, I will not take any cratty actions here, since I'm already wearing another hat. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! But what do I do now? JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to swap your username so that you could log in and maintain your prior username. Is that acceptable? MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. While I'd certainly prefer re-obtaining ownership of my original account (and I believe the case has been amply made), If getting my name back is the most I can expect, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

MBisanz, I would like to avail myself of your assistance but I can't edit on your talkpage due to restrictions on new accounts. Assuming you swap the usernames, must I be logged out of my new account in order to effect the change? I'm a bit unclear as to how this will work and I'd like to get this behind me. Please advise. Thanks. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find someone with sysadmin-level access willing to help, they may be able to force reset your password. –xeno^talk

Thank you for your observation. I looked into this and it appears to require joining an IRC channel in order to solicit the possible assistance you refer to. While I'm not unfamiliar with IRC, I do recall (many, many years ago) deciding to forego any further use of IRC due to security considerations (among others) and haven't been back there since. Assuming that IRC security considerations are still a matter of concern, I'd have to re-educate myself before venturing there again. I think I'd prefer MBisanz's kind offer of assistance (with the regrettable loss of my original account) to re-exploring the world of contemporary IRC. However, I certainly do appreciate your consideration. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

IRC is one way to get in touch with a sysadmin; but you could also try filing a bugzilla: request or contacting a sysadmin on their talk page. (If the security concerns you are talking about are exposing your IP, then you can get a cloak to conceal your IP.) –xeno^talk 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much for your informative observations but I'll be quite content with the restoration of my original user name...which will now have an e-mail associated with the account. Lesson hard-learned. Thanks. JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename completed. These things happen. No worries. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...but how do I re-access JakeInJoisey? JakeInJoisey(2) (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You just created JakeInJoisey(2) again.[9] Sign out and sign into JakeInJoisey with the same password JakeInJoisey(2) had before being renamed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks...just figured it out...and my ownership back as well. You guys rule. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If JakeInJoisey(2) could be sent back into the eternal void, that would be fine with me. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please desysop and debot User:AntiAbuseBot. The bot is well and truly inactive now, and if I were to start it up again, I think it would be inappropriate to do so without seeking re-approval. --Chris 05:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

When deflagging bots be sure to add them to wp:unflagged bots. –xeno^talk 15:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Added. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request a removal of my flags at this time, but would like to request that only rollback be added back. For personal reasons I need these flags gone for a while. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done as requested. –xeno^talk 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Aitias (talk · contribs) made their last edit in January 2010. Perhaps it is time for a desysopping for inactivity. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

He's been desysoped for over two years. :p Maxim_(talk) 19:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I see that now. Good call. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Status:     Not done Consensus amongst 'crats here and on the mailing list is against restoring admin rights. While there was a similar case we did action very recently, we were able to verify beyond reasonable doubt that the person requesting was in fact the admin mentioned. Conversely, there has also been a recent case (linked below) where the requester was an impersonator. In this case, there is no means available to verify identity, as checkuser evidence is unavailable and Cdc did not set a email address on his original account. If you are able to regain access to your original account, or have some other way of confirming your identity, this can be revisited then. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, not sure if this is the right place to request this, but I noticed that my account was de-admined, and I would like to request that a bureaucrat re-admin me. It's been awhile since I edited last, and unfortunately I no longer remember the password to my old account (User:Cdc). I've created a new account and would greatly appreciate it if my admin tools could be restored to this account. Thanks! Cdc II (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Non-bureaucrat comment) how can we tell you are really Cdc and not an impersonator? Thanks Secret ^account 02:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately your main account is over a year old, so even if I checkusered it I couldn't confirm your identity. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I asked SatuSuro (talk · contribs) to comment on this request, maybe he could confirm Cdc identity. Secret ^account 02:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I do not understand. I am User:Cdc, with a new account. How could I possibly be an impersontor of myself? -Cdc II (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• He is saying we have no way of verifying if the Cdc II account is being controlled by the same person that controlled the Cdc account. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• What do I do then? Cdc II (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

such a long time ago I honestly do not think I can help - I think this looks like some offline and under the hatch tinkering is required. I had very little to do with cdc in the latter stage of the account functioning - only the earlier part. I think it is up to the person claiming to be cdc to deal with someone in a crat position to confirm identity by some offline means - I am sorry I cannot help. SatuSuro 08:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to have faith in these people to carry out Admin. duties when they appear clueless as to the need to, and mechanisms for, proving who they are? Leaky Caldron 12:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you still control an email account with which you have corresponded in the past with a Wikipedia functionary (bureaucrat, Arbcom member, OS user, CU) who could therefore vouch for you? --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, have you ever met other Wikipedians in person, e.g. at a Meetup, who might be able to confirm your identity? WJBscribe (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In light of this similar request, I think that erring on the side of caution is the prudent choice. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The three Crats who've so far responded here (as well as any others who've viewed the thread and chosen not to resysop) seem to be 'erring on the side of caution' quite nicely. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite. –xeno^talk 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize that, of course. This request just happened to remind me of something and I wanted to provide a link to it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Was it to check your bank account for identity theft? Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, you can officially add me to the list of 'crats who've viewed the thread and think not doing anything is the wiser course of action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

meta discussion about mailing list

"Consensus amongst 'crats here and on the mailing list..." Why is this being discussed on the mailing list? Was there really any need for a discussion other than the one above? I know I'm flogging a dead horse, but the ever increasing use of secret lists is depressing. The conclusion "we will only restore the bit if evidence linking the two accounts is provided" could surely have been reached entirely on-wiki... WJBscribe (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why the thread is being closed while we are awaiting a response from the user. –xeno^talk 23:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's simple why this has been discussed on the mailing list: WP:BEANS. It's prudent to not let the reasons why we think Cdc II isn't Cdc become an inverse tacit guidebook as to how one can set about claiming a desysopped account. WilliamH (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Aye, it's the same reason why checkusers tend not to say a whole lot at SPI - with the rather high amount of requests of this nature we've had recently, it's clear at least some of these are opportunistic attempts to grab a mop. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you persist in treating those of us not at the top table like morons? Security by obscurity is no security at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dropping in with accusing comments as usual... Nobody said it was good security, but there's no reason we should be spelling it out either. Read WP:BEANS, it's been around for quite a while. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You take me for a fool at your peril. WP:BEANS was written by kids for kids. Time to grow up. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking you for a fool. Just rude. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Where I come from honesty isn't dismissed as rudeness. Clearly that's a lesson you still have to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When the bureaucrat mailing list was set up, I believe the Community explicitly stated that it was only to be used for discussing private renames. If the bureaucrats are not willing to abide by this, it should be scrapped and sent to OTRS. NW (Talk) 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what specifically was discussed on the bureaucrats' mailing list (which I'm obviously not on) with regard to this particular request. However, I can definitely imagine situations involving verifying whether a user (such as someone claiming to be a returning administrator) is who he or she claims he is, which would involve personal information that needs to be discussed privately rather than on-wiki. In such a situation, I certainly don't see the virtue of having that discussion on OTRS, where it would be handled by whichever one or two OTRS responders pick up the ticket first, rather than by a discussion among the community-selected bureaucrats. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several issues here, not the least of which is treating regular editors like idiots. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

For transparency's sake, I would hope that these conversations on the mailing list could be reproduced onwiki, redacted as necessary. Your statement is simply an educated guess. A reasonable one, to be sure, but perhaps not—perhaps it is just "I don't think that Cdc II should be given the tools back until we verify his or her identity". I also don't see why we are giving users who have not been identified to the WMF access to this mailing list if they are indeed discussing private information. NW (Talk) 02:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not on the mailing list, and am oblivious as to whether or not my message to them initiated any discussion, but it was in the capacity of an editor and nothing else. WilliamH (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, it was not my intention to imply there were secret discussions going on on the list; I'll try to clarify. As WilliamH said, he did send us an email with his thoughts about this request, citing BEANS as the reason for emailing us rather than posting it on-wiki. Much of what he observed would be apparent to any editor who took some time to look into this situation, and none of his comments referred to any private or sensitive information. There were a few replies amongst the mailing list from crats; all of these confirmed agreement with William's points and did not add anything new. I referred to the mailing list only because the replies other than my own came from two crats who have not yet commented on-wiki; this furthers the consensus that is actually visible to the public. Again, there was nothing particularly private about these emails, and I myself would not have any concerns releasing them other than the fact that I only wrote one of them myself; without explicit approval from the other crats, I'm not comfortable posting their emails here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. May I ask that you attempt to obtain such permission? NW (Talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've sent the necessary emails/poked people on IRC. It's up to them now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is harmless if everyone is agreeable; however, for what it's worth, personally, I do not think this is necessary or a good precedent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. As a humble member of the community, I do not want public discussion about what factors might apply to whether a request for admin status was authentic. If the discussions concerned factors that might cause an editor to be imprisoned or affected in a real-life kind of way, I might favor a "do it in the open" procedure. However, the general nature of these discussions are easily guessed, and precise details on what an impostor might do to avoid detection are not required. Wikipedia is not an exercise in open democracy—certain tasks are delegated to admins and others, and they stuff up occasionally, but they do a much better job than all other known management procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While I didn't respond to the mailing list discussion, I can say (as others have) that nothing "secret" was discussed there. A couple mentions of items which would be along the lines of WP:BEANS were posted, and those shouldn't be specifically mentioned here, but everything else simply echoed what has been mentioned here: none of the 'crats (including myself) who have commented on the issue are yet convinced the request is being made by the original owner of the account. As there are limited avenues open to determine that (based on what has already been mentioned here), none of us (as far as I can tell) would feel comfortable restoring the bits without something far more concrete in the way of a connection between the two accounts. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a lot of fuss over nothing. NW, you were involved in the original discussions which led to the establishment of the list. Its terms were never on the basis you say and are uncontentious and transparent - they're laid out explicitly at Wikipedia:CRAT#Subject_matter.

WJBScribe, you like to reiterate your difficulty with the list existing every so often. On this occasion, it's provoked unnecessary drama. The list generates little traffic, mostly RTV requests that are dealt with without discussion between the crats. When things are discussed on the list it's for good reasons. I repeat my offer to you to join the list as our official cynic-in-residence to slap us down whenever conversation is out of order. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When did it become fashionable around here to refer to any amount of criticism or scrutiny as "unnecessary drama"? Had I not said anything, the matter would have been left unaddressed to fester, with no reassurance provided about what the list is being used for. As to joining the list, see my reply to EVula below. WJBscribe (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, now that I see the description of what the list should be and am not just going from memory, I would think that my argument has only been bolstered. I'm going to quote it in full, with my emphases:

A Bureaucrat mailing list (wikien-bureaucrats) was established in March 2009. It is intended as a convenient way to notify bureaucrats about urgent matters or, on rare occasions, to discuss private matters. Any issue that is neither urgent nor necessarily private should instead be handled at the appropriate on-wiki venue, for instance at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Access to the list is strictly limited to current bureaucrats. However, not all bureaucrats are members. Subscription status is indicated above. Currently, the list administrator is Dweller and Pakaran is the co-administrator[...]

Please use the list with care: most issues can and should be discussed on-wiki, either at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, via a Bureaucrat's talk page, or in the appropriate on-wiki forum. Please do not email regarding matters that are neither urgent nor concern private information. If an email sent to the list is urgent but does not involve private information, a copy of the text of the email should be posted to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Please do not contact the list with concerns about edit-warring, conflict, or need for specialist tools, such as CheckUser or Oversight.

To contact the bureaucrat mailing list in appropriate circumstances, please use Special:Emailuser/Bureaucrats, or e-mail wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org. Please include links to any relevant on-wiki discussion. If you have a private request, please explain why it must remain private. If you prefer to contact an individual bureaucrat directly, you do not have to contact the mailing list.

Care and caution are mentioned here repeatedly, admonishing the users of the list to not overuse it. I don't doubt that everything was on the up-and-up, at least not this time. But I agree with Newyorkbrad—this is not a necessary or good precedent. NW (Talk) 12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't doubt that it was appropriate this time, there's nothing unecessary about it, nor is it a poor precedent. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to clarify with Newyorkbrad what he meant. I believe he is saying that reproducing material from the list is unnecessary and would not set a good precedent. –xeno^talk 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That's how I interpreted his comment, also. Happy‑melon 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps xeno; indeed, that is a more plausible reading of what Brad meant. Dweller, is it wrong to think that although misuse of such a mailing list would be a bad thing, so too is the appearance of misuse? The general public, or even the Arbitration Committee for the most part, is not going to be able to review your actions. Therefore, it is imperative that the list not stray beyond what is absolutely necessary at all times. NW (Talk) 13:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The very brief mailing list thread is so innocuous, and the time being spent arguing about it exceeds the amount of on-list discussion tenfold. It is basically an email from WilliamH and three very brief replies (all copied to the off-list correspondent) saying 'Yup - this isn't our first dog and pony show, and we noticed the same thing - thank you for your email'. And that's it. An email to the list. A few courtesy replies. There's really no need for further discussion on this. –xeno^talk 13:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth to anyone, I can verify that that's all the mailing list saw on this topic. The amount of discussion about the mailing list is easily ten times what the actual discussion on the mailing list was. WJBscribe, if you're seriously concerned about what's being sent to the mailing list, please subscribe; I respect you a great deal, but your comment really did stir up controversy needlessly, especially when subscribing would have shown you that it really is just RTV requests that come thru there 99% of the time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as stirring up controversy needlessly, sorry. I'm hardly the only one around here who dislikes the amount of discussion that take place off-wiki and I don't think it a waste of time to discuss these issues. I don't see the relevance of the length of this discussion - I think it is an important one to have. It seems an odd argument to suggest that I should join a list whose existence I don't agree with before I can comment on its use. Would I be free to comment publicly on the discussions that have been held on the list if matters have been discussed on the list that I think should not have been? On the contrary, presumably (if I joined the list) I would be bound by some obligation to hold the discussions that have been held on it confidential? WJBscribe (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that you join the mailing list so that you could see that it is indeed being used for its intended purpose. Seriously, I did a quick check earlier (only went back to March, because I've got other things to do too), and aside from the topic at hand, the only emails on the list that weren't on-topic (RTV requests, rename notifications) were someone trying to merge their account contribs (and then someone directed them to contact a dev), a supremely off-topic thread where we said "hi" to Hersfold when he joined the list (I'll go ahead and post my contents of my email to the list for that: "Fresh meat..." Yes, that is 100% of my email), and oh yeah, someone that emailed us to remove their sysop bit (before we could, so the entire on-list discussion was two different 'crats saying "go ask a steward" at roughly the same time). In all those cases, the only time the 'crats actively engaged in off-topic behavior was when we welcomed Hersfold. Such a cabal.
I find the "there's discussion on the private mailing list, oh noes!" discussion silly chiefly because the mailing list really is supremely boring. "Would I be free to comment publicly on the discussions that have been held on the list if matters have been discussed on the list that I think should not have been?" Sure, why not? I mean, ideally you'd shoot the offending 'crat an email (or send one to the entire list as a reminder) first, but if you're seeing a consistent abuse of the mailing list, then yes, it should be taken down, dismantled, whatever. The only stuff you'd be bound to hold confidential would be the confidential content itself (which would be fairly obvious; I trust you enough to not start posting that a RTV-requesting editor was renamed).
Join the list, but don't hold your breath until you see abuse of the mailing list; otherwise, your face will turn bluer than your sig. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Hersfold's comment that "it's the same reason why checkusers tend not to say a whole lot at SPI" implied an awkward association, and could have been worded better. WP:BEANS is still relevant at SPI, but the core reason we don't say much there is the privacy and CheckUser policy. These are policies that I follow to the hilt. As for the e-mail itself, had you received it, WJBscribe, then the only thing I expect would've made you not inclined to repeat it is common sense. WilliamH (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not currently subscribed to the mailing list. My experience with other private mailing lists related to Wikipedia leads me to conclude that the criticism it generates exceeds, by orders of magnitude, both any actual problems the list poses and its utility to the project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely if the utility of a mailing list is exceeded by orders of magnitude by the criticism it generates, everyone would be better off without it regardless of whether it poses problems or not? WJBscribe (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are suggesting that we return to the old method of requiring users who wish to enhance their personal security to either make a public rename request, or try to find an active and available bureaucrat to process their RTV request via EmailUser. I cannot support that - many of these users are not at all familiar with how the project works, or how to track down individual users to help them.
Perhaps you should review the actual utility of the mailing list before making such ill-informed judgments about it? You are both seemingly unaware of precisely how useful the mailing list has been in helping users who have naively revealed their real names without realizing the dangers of doing so. (You could temporarily subscribe to review the archives to see exactly what it is being used for, and comb for evidence of cabalism) –xeno^talk 12:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that moving these requests on-wiki would pose any privacy problems. Someone who has edited under their real name would not suffer further compromise by making a request on a page devoted to RTV requests and marked {{NOINDEX}}, particularly if the page were periodically deleted. The renames themselves are logged so it's not as though this information is completely hidden. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, xeno, to be clear, I'm not leveling any accusations of misuse or "cabalism" or even in any way concurring with any innuendos of that ilk. I thought I made that clear. The problem is strictly one of perception. Perception is important enough, however, that I question whether the list is, overall, beneficial. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For want of a handful of mistaken perceptions, I cannot support making it any more difficult or visible to help these (typically new) users enhance their personal safety and security. –xeno^talk 15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of mailing lists to keep information confidential has not exactly been an unqualified success on this project. Personal information appears to have leaked from the oversight mailing list in the past and entire threads from the ArbCom lists have been displayed on Wikipedia Review for some time. So yes, I do think contacting individual bureaucrats though emailuser would be better. The fewer people have information, the more likely it is to stay private. We encourage people to email a list whose membership is not closed - not only is the information available to any current bureaucrat who would like to join the list, but any users who may in future be appointed bureaucrats. And of course, the requirements for passing RfB may change in future. All in all, I think requests to individual bureaucrats would be a better way to protect private information. WJBscribe (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that your mind is made up. In response to your request, however, I did review the bureaucrat-l archives. I was able to draw three conclusions:

1. The discussion related to CDC contained nothing the least bit confidential or problematic from a WP:BEANS standpoint, and in general restates the points already made onwiki
2. The RTV requests that are the putative reason for the list's existence are by and large not truly privacy related. Instead, they are dramatic last acts by frustrated users (c.f. MeatBall:GoodBye
3. During the six-month period I looked at, I didn't see any emails that were unrelated to RTV other than a very brief (and perfectly legitimate) request that other bureaucrats review an RFA.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saddened to hear UC's analysis. And, as to "...a very brief (and perfectly legitimate) request that other bureaucrats review an RFA" - I'm not sure I agree that this is an appropriate use of the list. Was it urgent or privacy related? If not private, was a copy of the message posted to this noticeboard in accordance with Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Subject_matter? WJBscribe (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I see no compelling reason to terminate the list, which is serving its purpose well. The alternative is new users having to fumble around trying to figure out who out of nearly three-dozen bureaucrats (a significant number of whom no longer even participate in a bureaucratic capacity) are active and available to email their request. –xeno^talk 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC) For the record, I disagree with your second assertion.

• It would seem to me entirely appropriate for WJB to hold a level of concern about this mailing list, for the reasons he has amplified on clearly and with good evidence above. Those who knock him I suspect have hidden agendas. Having personally being at the sharp end of "Teh sekret arbom mailing list" I can only remind users that whatever assurances those in "power" hand out to us plebs you are being watched. Other than clearly obvious legal issues or those relating to the WMF we should encourage as much debate to be on WP as possible. The editors chastising WJB are clearly of a different opinion. More fool them.

That we have highly inactive bureaucrats like The Uninvited Co. (inactive as a crat, indeed admin for well over a year) [10] coming up with argumentative and demeaning rhetoric like .."It seems to me that your mind is made up.." is indicative of the entrenched mentality in this regard.Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

With all do respect, implying that people have hidden agendas is just chucking AGF out the frigging window. You're my go-to guy when it comes to people I usually (okay, so almost always) disagree with but still have absolute respect for, Pedro, but I definitely think you're being rather insulting with that bit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have any time to watch all these people I'm allegedly supposed to be watching in my almighty power as a 'crat. Was I supposed to get a support staff of some sort to help me in these undocumented duties I've been unknowingly overlooking? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if this comes over as insulting, it was not intended to be. Let me put it another way. The appearance of appropriate actions is at times as important as the act of appropriate actions. Pedro :  Chat  10:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, some people insist on seeing the worst regardless of any lack of evidence supporting their opinion. Some of those people have posted in this discussion. I suspect that nothing will ever satisfy some of them, and they will continue to see cabals and suspicious things where there are none. I have never seen the mailing list used inappropriately, and when any discussion there begins to head into territory which may fall into that (which almost never happens), one or more people chime in indicating the discussion needs to move to the site so it will be public. As others have mentioned, there is not much discussion at all that happens there, and what little there is generally focuses on noting that RTV name changes have been done or guiding someone through that process, with a smidgen (and a very, very tiny smidgen, at that) of goofing off or random non-wiki-related topics. All of us know the rules for using the mailing list, and we all do our utmost to abide by them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear 99% of what occurs on the bureaucrat mailing list involve RTV and rename requests. Requests come in, and then crats fulfill them, deny them, or refer them elsewhere. The email list provides users a quick, reliable way to get a private request to a number of crats simultaneously, which I believe is its utility, and an important one at that. Criticisms of the email list shall continue, but we would not be better off without it. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please can a bureaucrat remove the admin bit from my account. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your work as an admin over the last few years. WJBscribe (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A request has been made that a bureaucrat close Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Snottywong. Thanks. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 23:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading through the discussion, I can't tell if the BAG has approved or denied the request. Generally speaking, 'crats don't do that part; we only flag the approved bot once the BAG approves it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd appreciate a 'crat deciding/judging the apparent consensus. "Snottywong" is not a bot!  Chzz  ►  07:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless that was a joke, I think it really highlights that we need a better system for dealing with BAG membership. See Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Bot_Approvals_Group and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions_and_RfX_closures, for the relevant instruction on how-to close. --Chris 08:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a bot to close BAG nominations. —SW— ^confess 15:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, I was reading that as a request to close a bot discussion, and I couldn't see anything about that on the page you reference, Chris. I can see now I was misreading it (shows how often I visit BAG...). As for the nomination, the discussion seems fairly non-consensus to me. I'm not sure why BAG doesn't make the determination themselves as they seem to be a fairly insular group which has pretty-much all authority over their little domain. I'm not even sure why someone has to go through that little thing to join the group, so I don't know that I would be a good person to do anything regarding that closure. Maybe BAG ought to elect some term-rotating coordinators who can make the determination for such discussions. It seems to me it would be better made by someone in the know about what they need. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. By the same principle, do you think that RfA !voters should decide the outcome of RfA's? Sorry...of course not...and that's facetious. But fact is, for better-or-worse, 'crats are empowered to give out bot rights - so we have to ask you dudes to decide requests for that flag. But, for the next level up - BRFA? hm. Interesting. Trouble is, we have no 'úber-BRFA', and so we call on 'crats to adjudicate and appoint them (or not). That may not be a fair request upon our 'crats; I'm not sure -but I'm not sure how it could be better, either.

It may be a small group, 日本穣, but it also carries massive weight - one single "rogue bot" can cause massive disruption in a very short time (as I'm sure you appreciate) so being a BAG member does carry considerable responsibility. To date, it's mostly been a genial discussion/consensus, and I dearly hope it won't become another "RfA" - but I do believe it needs due process, and someone to evaluate and adjudicate, and for now, that's 'crats. I thank you for helping in this specific inst, but I encourage any further discussion...  Chzz  ►  08:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't deciding to give out a bot flag; it's deciding whether someone should be able to collaborate with others in deciding who gets a bot flag. I'm fine with flagging bots based on a discussion (and I've done that before), but I fail to see why a 'crat should decide who joins an un-flagged group of editors/bot-writers on WP. For all intents and purposes, BAG is basically a WikiProject which oversees bots and makes sure they are operated according to policy. 'Crats shouldn't be deciding who can join that group. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point, 日本穣, and I understand your point - but - who do you think should decide it? <honest, straight q>  Chzz  ►  09:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

By deciding who does and does not join BAG we would (indirectly) be deciding what bots do and do not get the flag. Because of this, it could be argued that it's our job to close BAG nominations. In fact, since bot flaggings reside with bureaucrats on a technical level, it could even be argued that it's our responsibility to make sure that everyone in BAG can be trusted, and one way that this can be accomplished is by closing the BAG nominations. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this viewpoint (and I've not thought about it enough to have an opinion yet), but I am saying that Chzz makes a logical argument and I can appreciate his point. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, closing a BAG nomination is essentially just assessing consensus in a discussion, so couldn't any uninvolved admin do it? —SW— ^squeal 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Small, but important, point: you don't have to be an admin to close almost all consensus-discussions.  Chzz  ►  22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've closed the discussion as "no consensus". This should be resolved now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to have the admin flag restored, please. I've noticed many backlog requests at AN/I (particularly AIV) and would like to pitch in. I will gladly answer any concerns that may arise. Thanks Tiderolls 04:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• The self-request for removal is here http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2751916&oldid=2751528&rcid=2683597. Looking at the edits around July of this year, I do not see anything resembling a cloud that would prevent Tide_rolls from getting the bit back. Does anyone else have any issues with this? -- Avi (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see any concerns. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Absolutely no concerns; it'll be wonderful to have you back.  Chzz  ►  09:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Dweller (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the admin flag from my account? I've dipped back into a second period of inactivity as my chronic fatigue related illness seems to be worsening, and I could probably benefit from having any subconcious guilt at lack of activity here eased. Many thanks. --Taelus (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done, do please get better! We hope to see you back at some point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I was de-admined because of activity in July 2011. The desire to run a Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries event at my school, though, has driven me to resume editing from this account. A mop would be useful! I've been around anonymously while inactive and believe that I'm still competent to be an admin. I will keep a look-out here for any questions. Thanks! Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No concerns here. –xeno^talk 13:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Dweller (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it's needed to flag this bot: User:SharedIPArchiveBot it's not yet approved but it's running unlimited trial, which will take few months, it can't run without flag, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SharedIPArchiveBot_2 Petrb (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Flagged, but please attend to Chzz's questions before commencing operations. –xeno^talk 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic material collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TCO comes and goes, posts as an IP, posts as RetiredUser, requests blocks, requests unblocks, ad nauseum ... he has never vanished even though he exercised the RTV. OK, so if he is now going to stay as RetiredUser, could someone please do whatever needs to be done to assure that both accounts indicate that TCO is RetiredUser and vice-versa (aren't alternate accounts supposed to be identified, and he still signs as and identifies as TCO)? The right to vanish shouldn't be so abused-- editors should know that retired user is TCO, and his unstable editing history should be available to editors for judging the validity of the grenades he's lobbing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Diffs (see WT:USEP for context): "I'm taking a lot of incoming rounds at FAC, but that is fine. I had the first say and it is better if I let others see what it all means for them. Yeah, Signpost would be good. Please make it happen if you know how." (to a member of WP:USEP) "Your timing was impeccable" (from a participant at WT:USEP) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Sandy, I know you are upset, but please calm down. Even if you want to tear me apart, there's probably a way to do it more effectively (even just tactically). This whole site seems to run around different cliques and factions and alliances and things get interpreted in terms of that. Sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar. If any more "betters" want to check, then I can prove that most of my Wiki quality criticism Powerpoint was written before I became aware of USEP/IEP, etc. That's just ANOTHER interesting drama going on. You can also even dig out the diff where I said to Jimmy that Sandy was 90% right on the WMF criticism. And when I tried to buck him up, it was to buck him up, not to try to play some faction game. Or look for an ally or any of that crap. He's a civilian and a high school teacher. Let's not AK-47 him--I'll take the bullet. And what does Piotr/USEP have to do with comments on my Powerpoint about lack of traction on important articles? He's a part of the research council isn't he (the thing wrt studies on Wiki, that user DAR runs.) Happy Thanksgiving to all. Yes, Sandy, you too. Srsly.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC) P.s. I am fine with Sandy's plan being implemented (rename my account back to TCO). I think I asked for it and got shot down. So the whole thing is sort of "don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer 'crat". Patronize much? I get upset about stuff that matters-- that's rarely, usually not stuff on Wikipedia, and this little kerfuffle doesn't matter. Where it's going is both of your pages need to declare who you are, since you've made such a mess of your contribs and various accounts, and have never vanished, have posted as an IP and as two different VanishedUsers, and continue to sign as TCO, and that you should declare the alternate accounts on both accounts, and something should be shut down, since you're now getting posts on multiple talk pages. Your "Happy Thanksgiving" fluff doesn't cover for how you've abused of admins and crats, asking for blocks and unblocks, vanishing and unvanishing-- just declare who you are on all accounts, and then stick with one. And go patronize high school students-- they might not be able to see through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Grenades? Please use a more NPOV word. --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not a fan of TCO, that's pretty obvious, but discounting my stated POV, this is a clear abuse of the RTV system. Block all of the accounts he has access to except for the one that has his oldest history and rename that one TCO. If that can't be done, block all of the accounts he has access to, and have him create a new account and declare the old ones. This isn't the first time that the RTV system has been gamed, I can point to others, we need to stop letting this happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC) I posted from an IP, pretty openly. I don't think that is "gaming". It is "flouting". And I was radio silent for a few months. I didn't run a sock or try to hide--I guess that is how you are supposed to do it, but I never got the message. I think I am different from the normal person on Wiki. The TCO account was just a page brought back by Karanac, against my wishes at the time but fine now, and I have no idea why it actually functions. I think there was a post or two from it, since my accounts on other projects are TCO and there's a combined account somehow and I was logged in on Commons. This account is essentially the "main account". (I think you are a fan of mine, Sven, in sort of a hate to love fashion.)RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Oh..and you 'crats are probably sick of reading all this drama, but: my impression of Jimmybutler's comment wrt "impeccable timing" was that it referred to me reaching out to him when he was down ("crushed dream"). His later post confirms that. Sandy has misconstrued this to be related to me publishing a (somewhat) critical analysis of FA relevance and is making some connections (me and USEP? Huh...I have been very skeptical and questioning of them!) RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Very little in the above is relevant to the work of bureaucrats; I've collapsed it.
RetiredUser12459780, I do not think it would be particularly appropriate for you to continue editing with such a username. If you want to be renamed, please post a request at WP:CHUS.
Whatever else is going on here should be raised at a more appropriate venue. –xeno^talk 15:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting the admin bit back after requested removal because the reasons have settled themselves down for a good while now, but I promised to give myself a month, so hear I am at a month. Thanks in advance, -- DQ (t) (e) 04:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done as there has been no controversy prior to removal or after (it has only been about 30 days since the removal request). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• User talk:Nick-D#About those impostors of mine
• Dear all, I have been directed here by User:Nick-D for an issue which I've brought up to his attention on his discussion page listed above. Lately, I have been the target of a malicious cherry-picking stalker who has turned impostor as well ⟨1. Dave1195 (talk · contribs) and 2. Dave1175 (talk · contribs)⟩. My initial reaction is that the jerk is one big asshole and he is trying to make my properly sourced and accredited edits look bad on them article pages, but of course I haven't made any such impolite comments until now for illustrative purposes. As the accounts are now blocked, I made a suggestion to Nick-D to have them locked as well with further extensions to Dave1165/1155/1145/1135/1125/1115/1105 so as to avoid more confusion in future. Thoughts anyone? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To expand on Dave's post, at the time I blocked Dave1175 (talk · contribs) they were impersonating Dave1185 by having his talk page appear on their page [11] and posting messages to editors Dave has been involved with using his customised signature [12] [13] [14] [15]. This is obviously well beyond the pale, so deleting the accounts outright (if possible) or changing the user names so that their edits aren't confused with Dave1185's seems warranted. I've worked with Dave1185 for years, and I found it tricky to figure out which Dave was which when I was imposing the block, so the potential for confusion is very real. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue with renaming the accounts. That is the limit of our ability to help however, as we do not have the technical ability to delete accounts or prevent further accounts from being created. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

<e/c>Why would you want the indefblocked imposter accounts renamed? Surely the easiest and clearest thing is to leave them where they are, so they're unusable and future admins can easily see why they were blocked. It's tricky trying to anticipate every single variation on your username and I recommend a hearty dose of WP:BEANS before anyone, yourself included, speculates further onwiki about how variations are made. You might consider a namechange yourself? Otherwise, it's whack-a-mole RBI and I'm sure the admin community will help block the imposters as they pop up. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify, my question is... "are you able to LOCK them accounts to prevent abuse/misuse in future?" --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what blocking does. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange but other accounts that get BLOCKED and LOCKED shows when I review them, but these impostor account doesn't. Anyway, the CU results in the original SPI case page for Dave1195 wasn't clear so I was hoping that someone would be able to shed more light on who the sockmaster actually was, which is clearly missing in the case of Dave1175. Lastly, if it is within your ability, could you delete the current page content of both Dave1175 and Dave1195, then salt it permanently against re-creation? As it is, I don't feel comfortable with them. Thanks bunch. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to discuss the CU results with the CU team. Any admin can delete and salt for you; you don't need a crat, but I'll happily do it. NB you've got mail. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Now done. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Dweller, you just helped me remember who the perpetrator might be and I concur with your finding. Nick-D, think you're up to the job to delete, lock and salt User talk:Dave1195/1175? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done them already. If you agree that no renames are useful, please mark this resolved. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• This happens from time to time, unfortuantely. I've seen it a few times (and been the target of it a few more). The best thing to do is just to block them and move on, obviously deleting user and talk pages that were created for imeprsonation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This was mentioned above, but "locking" an account has to do with the global account system - locking an account effectively blocks it on all wikis, and prevents the account from spreading to new wikis (for example, if you were to view a page on the Japanese Wikipedia while logged in, wham bang, you have a ja.wiki account without knowing it. Locking an account prevents this from happening). Locking is done by the stewards, and only in cases of demonstrated cross-wiki abuse. I don't think that it's necessary here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I have a unified login in use on all wikimedia projects and the last thing I want is for the jerk to follow me to any one of them and cause confusion for me over there. Hence, the request to LOCK him out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Then you will need to ask a steward for help. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• You could consider going to the global title blacklist, to prevent pages being created on all wikis with certain phrases in them. Admins can still create such pages, however. --Rschen7754 20:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I blacklisted the pattern (scroll to bottom), for what it's worth. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh noes... did you blacklist mine (Dave1185)? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It got blacklisted as

Dave11[0-9]{2}.* <newaccountonly|errmsg=titleblacklist-forbidden-new-account>

, restricting the blacklisting to those creating a new account. If they try to make a name that matches the regular expression, it will give them an error. --Rschen7754 05:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Whooops~! My bad, still struggling to stay awake after a long graveyard shift, thanks for the help... I've gotta turn in now or I risked becoming Mr. Dracula. Cheers all~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I've had this problem before. If this continues on other wikis, you can get it on the global blacklist too but you need to to talk to a steward. --Rschen7754 05:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rschen7754, is it possible to add two more? DaveII85 and Davell85? Thanks~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would contact King of Hearts; I'm not confident in my ability to write regular expressions. --Rschen7754 01:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed it, the regex is now .*Dave(11|ll|II)[0-9]{2}.* <newaccountonly|errmsg=titleblacklist-forbidden-new-account>. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a million, guys... y'all rock~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I, Jason Lee, also known as AllyUnion, hereby due request the removal of my sysop status. Thank you. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if any other Crats had seen this, or this (permanent link)?

Leaving aside discussions of specific individuals' behaviours, I wonder if we should consider some, erm, policing of RfAs? --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship would be a more appropriate venue for discussion on this topic. Crats have a mandate to judge the consensus at an AfD, not to enforce civility or other conduct guidelines. If crats start to take an active role in policing RFA conduct, it will undermine their appearance of neutrality in making RFA closes. Monty₈₄₅ 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware of the difference and of our responsibilities. I wanted to communicate with the other Crats, not with the regulars at WT:RFA. As it's not a privacy matter, the mailing list is inappropriate and this is the appropriate forum. Any Crat can intercede at any RfA without breach of neutrality, and we often do. We just opt not to close it. --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "policing" of RfA/Bs outside of deciding on the consensus, which includes, at times, the weight given to particular opinions? DO you mean striking out unhelpful comments? If so, we are going to have to decide between someone voicing honest passion and someone acting like a troll. Do you mean flat out removing certain statements? Do you mean applying blocks to troll-like or highly incivil respondents at RfX in order to protect the integrity and dignity of the process and the project? -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

sigh, so much of the discussion at Wikipedia is so, well, bureaucratic. Someone raises a point that is at least worthy of discussion and the first response is to quibble over the venue for discussion and the second is to quibble over meaning. Avi, if you think it would be far too difficult to decide who is voicing honest passion and who is acting like a troll, come out and make that point. Cut to the chase. Enter the debate. There is one of those bluelink thingys that some people love to pepper their posts with that talks about Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. It is must be Wikipedia's most widely ignored guideline. Dean B (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Avi. I have an open mind on what we do. What I am convinced about is that we should do something. Happy to let consensus guide what that something is. But first, I want to know if other Crats think 'something' needs to be done. --Dweller (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dean, this is the Bureaucrats' noticeboard . In all seriousness, my response to Dweller would depend on what Dweller has in mind. Personally, I would like for bureaucrats to be as non-intrusive as possible in RfX. If someone is acting like an idiot in RfX, I'd hope we, as bureaucrats, would recognize it and take the activity into consideration when we measure consensus. As for more extreme measures, we do have processes in force for handling disruptive editors (RfC's etc.) and any admin (bureaucrats included) can take protective measures in the case of harassment. A question for you, Dean (and everyone else, of course), if you saw a bureaucrat take protective action by blocking a misbehaving editor, would you feel that would affect said bureaucrat's impartiality when closing the discussion? -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a crat who "policed" an RfX should close it; they might not be partial because of those actions but there is no point in a crat acting in any way that might make people even slightly question their impartiality. Although we don't imho have a sufficient amount of crats, there should be enough of them to ensure that "policing" crat and closing crat are two different people.

On the topic itself, I think Dweller is correct. Of course crats shouldn't watch RfXs like hawks and delete any possibly offending content or block anyone making a slightly unorthodox comment but they should intervene when people use the RfX for off-topic discussions or general discussions not related to the candidate and move such discussions and/or block people insisting to have them on the RfX despite warnings. For example, discussions about whether admins should be article creators belong to WT:RFA, not the RfA of somebody who did not create articles; on the other hand, the discussion why this user did not create articles belongs there (or maybe the talk page). Of course any user can already "clean up" RfX discussions but they are often challenged by others, leading to more controversy and potentially edit-warring (for example there was an edit-war about the inclusion of one of Keepscases' questions recently). Crats on the other hand are respected by almost all participants in such discussions and their job is to preserve the "institution of RfX", so if they "police" an RfX it will be better for all involved. Regards SoWhy 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. Policing of behavior is not a part of a bureaucrat's job. (And I don't see why incivility in an RfA is different from incivility elsewhere. I looked at the link above and it would have been far better to have taken it to WP:WQA that to rant and discuss it on the RfA itself. Determining what is or is not civil is a consensus issue rather than a straightforward judgement.) --regentspark (comment) 21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrats may no more act as police than admins. Bureaucrats may judge finished RFAs, and nothing more. The community is more than up to the task of policing incivility. Andrevan@ 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The community has not been policing incivility at RfA very well. --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Then that's the community's failing. I'm not sure that bureaucrats should necessarily step in and pick up the ball that's been dropped. If we (as 'crats) police an RfA, it shouldn't be because it's part of our job description, but because we're seasoned editors with relatively level heads, a description that can easily be applied to non-bureaucrats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly true in theory but in practice a crat "policing" such problems will not be met with the same resistance as a non-crat seasoned editor. Maybe the better way would be to accept that the community failed and make it part of the crats' job description instead. Regards SoWhy 22:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, bureaucrats do tend to enjoy a bit of added freedom in policing stuff, but I prefer to consider it being because of who we are as individual editors, rather than just because we have a userright flag that most people don't. So... we're agreeing about how things currently are, just with different points of view about it. :)
I'd rather it not become a codified part of our job description, however, if only because it's not something that has to do with gauging consensus (such as with RfX closures) or something assigned to us for technical reasons (renaming and userright modifications). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Clerks for a relevant proposal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That proposal seems to have been stale since July. As such we still have a problem with no solution. --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, neither of the two links you provide in your original post are symptomatic of a problem. The first is to an essay by Dayewalker (disclosure: I !voted support and still believe, on the balance, that that is a reasonable !vote) on his/her experiences. It is a personal statement, and I respect that, but the facts are that the candidate has a weak content contribution, did point to content contributions that were not borne out under scrutiny, and much of what the opposers said was legitimate. I'm not sure what a bureaucrat, or even the community can do in this sort of situation. The second link, to the ANI report on BadgerDrink, is where the comments ended up (disclosure: I !voted support and then withdrew my !vote). Badger's original comments, while harsh, were neither disruptive nor uncivil and this is borne out by the fact that several !voters used that as a basis for their oppose !votes. Do we really want to police RfA to the point where these sort of useful comments will disappear? The reality is that the RfA process, because it involves comments on people rather than content, will always be at the edge of civility. It is better to acknowledge that and let the community figure out when someone crosses the line. Appointing guardians of civility will only kill useful debate. --regentspark (comment) 17:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK, but looking at the bigger picture. We have about 730 active admins (this includes bots, I think. There are also 557 "semi-active" admins (fewer than 30 edits in the last two months), and that counts for something, so the effective number is higher than 730.) But anyway, we're loosing close to 200 a year.

I extrapolate the number 200 by looking at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive. If none of those who have been active for getting on a year resume activity, then we'd have to de-sysop for inactivity the following numbers: December 2011, 13; January 2012, 18; February 2012, 15; March 2012, 16; April 2012, 17. Some will surely resume activity, but not many -- it's been near a year after all -- and then there are active admins who will resign or be de-sysopped by ArbCom, so this probably balances. This works out to about 200 a year.

And the number of new admins being admitted is almost negligible at this point. At this rate we will have zero admins in a few years. But we don't have to get to zero before it becomes a problem. I'm assuming that admin attrition is is not increasing in rate; if it is, so much the worse. But even if steady, simple arithmetic progression indicates we'll run low on admins in a shorter time than one might think. We have maybe a few years, but not a lot of years.

Unless there's a way to slow admin attrition (can't think of any), then perforce something needs to be done at at the admission end. I'm not sure what, but in my opinion efforts such as Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011 aren't a good way to get things done and aren't likely to succeed. Therefore, sooner or later the 'crats will have to step up, I think. Whether this would be in form of more active intervention as suggested above, de facto taking less account of raw vote totals, or what, I'm not sure. But probably something. Not today, not this year, but it's something to be mindful of, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with your analysis of the difficulty. I'm certainly willing to help but remain unsure how best to do it. More active crat managements of RfAs has in the past hit a lot of resistance. Of course, I could simply grant +sysop to 20 accounts every month that I think deserve the bit to combat attrition, but I suspect I wouldn't remain a bureaucrat long if I started doing that... WJBscribe (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with your analysis. We have seen that the number of admins promoted per given time period varies widely, but it is certainly not negligible. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that, as you say, "Some will surely resume activity, but not many." Many Wikipedians are active or not at a given time depending on how much free time they have in their own lives, and we have seen many cases of inactive admins returning years later to request re-adminship or similar. There is no pending admin crisis, and if there ever were, it would be easily fixable in ways other than bureaucrat policing of RFAs (for example, if the Foundation were to offer some kind of editing stipend a la Mechanical Turk, an idea I've not heard proposed). I have yet to hear any explanation as to how bureaucrat policing of comments would lead to more admin promotions. The problem isn't there, the solution wouldn't fix the problem that doesn't exist. Andrevan@ 01:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If RfAs still looked like this, I'd agree. But they don't. We've evolved a monstrosity that is increasingly off-putting to good candidates. I used to be able to persuade roughly one editor per month to run, but those I've asked this year have all declined for pretty much the same reason - they're volunteers, it's a hobby, going through RfA doesn't look like much fun, thank you very much. You're probably right that "policing" RfAs is unlikely to be the solution, but sometimes I think it'd be nice to try something new. I suspect we're already running a bit short on admins. There may not be huge backlogs, but I suspect there are few admin actions (especially speedy deletions) that anyone has time to double check these days. An admin crisis may be hyperbole, but I do think the project's diminishing number of admins (when IMO it should be growing) is an issue that needs to be tackled. WJBscribe (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We're all no doubt reassured that "The problem isn't there, the solution wouldn't fix the problem that doesn't exist". Clearly Andrevan's detailed analysis is that there is no issue at RFA at all, that all is sweetness and light in fact; and that we're merrily giving lots of people +sysop after a vigorous but courteous and collegial debate. Obviously he's right - and after all his log [16] clearly indicates how he's right in touch with RFA promotions over the last year. And his regular input at RFA is such that he gets it right first time every time. I think I'd be more interested in the opinion of bureaucrats who take an active interest in RFA to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly true that I haven't been terribly involved with on-wiki matters of late, but as you point out, I promoted several candidates in May, although I'm not sure what your comment about getting it right means. A simple glance at Successful_requests_for_adminship shows that we promote anywhere from one or two to about 10 admins per month. There are several RFAs active right now, some of which are on track to passing with little or no opposition. To WJBScribe's point, although this environment is quite different from 2004, it's not fundamentally different from, say, 2009. There are many external factors which may contribute to the decline in qualified admin candidates, and it is useless to speculate why 2011 has been a light year thus far. Perhaps the English Wikipedia has finally reached some level of saturation with the pool of prospective admins in the world at large. Maybe the community has decided to tighten its standards due to high profile cases of admins abusing the tools. Whatever the reason, I still see no reason not to believe that RFA is a self-regulating community process which will maintain a certain equilibrium. Andrevan@ 09:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to codify things for this. If a 'crat stops by an RfA and sees something which needs addressing, s/he can address it. Otherwise, I don't see a need to add "policing RfAs" as another job role as I don't know that any of us have that much free time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried this once. More trouble than it was worth. bibliomaniac15 07:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have done it once or twice, too, though I don't remember. I might not even have been a 'crat at the time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was Bibliomaniac's experience that actually gave me reason for posting here. If a Crat caused such furore when trying to police an RfA, any admin had better be wearing asbestos underwear. We need to build a consensus that poor behaviour at RfA is unacceptable. I thought that could start with the Crats... but maybe there's another way to skin the cat. What if the community agreed/defined a set of unacceptable behaviours that any admin can and should remove from RfX? I don't know if it's possible to be prescriptive enough, but is the theory worth trying? --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In my observation, the more we try to codify rules and procedures the harder we make it to go about the work of producing the encyclopedia and being and becoming admins. It's always tempting to try to prescribe more and more rules to avoid each and every bad or undesired behavior that has or might in the future come about, but those rules have a cost. They drag on the functioning of the encyclopedia by requiring that they be read and followed instead of just using common sense. Those that don't wish to behave well won't anyway for the most part. I've long felt it's best to minimize the administrative overhead and do whatever we can to focus the most effort on improving the content. - Taxman ^Talk 08:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remove my sysop rights. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your efforts here. Please do come back when you're refreshed. --Dweller (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, 'crats;

Could I please ask your opinion re. a VERY rough idea; I am ONLY asking for 'crat-hat-opinion. And it's numbered just to help discussion

Not a proposal - just a question

1. FOR ONE MONTH ONLY <commencing on acceptence>
2. Users in good standing (<up for discussion> established/non-problematic/experienced/clueful - specific prerequisite: minimum of one year on English Wikipedia and 3000 edits; no blocks in the last 6 months>)
3. ... could apply for temporary SysOp, on <this page>. short 'support' / 'oppose' from all users would be welcome (but not necessary). Excess discussion is discouraged, but not prohibited.
4. There will be one week, to allow discussion.
5. At the end of one week, a BUREAUCRAT can decide to assign the permission. It will be removed after ONE WEEK. Only TEN users can be 'temporary admins' at a time.
6. They user will sign an agreement, to ONLY perform a reasonable number of non-controversial tasks, and a maximum of ten admin actions per day.^{Modified per discussion below  Chzz  ►  17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)}
7. Temp sysop would be strictly limited to a maximum of 10 users at a time
8. Their permission MAY be removed, without discussion, during the week, at the discretion of ANY CRAT.
9. After one week, the permission will be removed. The same user cannot request more than once, during the trial.
10. At the end of one month, all permissions are removed.
11. BUREAUCRATS have total discretion to remove rights at any time without prejudice. It is JUST a trial.

Note: This it not, yet, a proposal; it is an enqiry, to see if our 'crats might be amenable to it. It is just what it is; asking 'crats what they think.  Chzz  ►  23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Too tired to check, but I think temporary sysop is a PEREN suggestion that the community has shot down in flames on a number of occasions. Crats have been selected on the basis of our respect for consensus; it's hard to come to such a group and ask for our unaffected opinions on something that's been demonstrated not to have consensus. But I'm tired and perhaps grumpy. Let's see if any of my colleagues disagree. At any rate, thank you for thinking and attempting to stimulate debate for the good of the project. --Dweller (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship#RfC: Should we begin a trial? is not a zillion miles out. Throw me a bone here, What might work?  Chzz  ►  01:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of temporary sysopship for several reasons. First, I don't think placing a cap on actions is acceptable for an place where IAR is supposed to be the big rule. If a temp admin made 11, 12, 20, or even more admin actions that were all perfectly done and uncontroversial (whatever that's supposed to mean), I don't think I would remove their rights for the sake of my conscience. Second, total discretion without prejudice and without discussion is A BAD IDEA™. Third, the permissions surveillance is a bad use of resources that could otherwise be used to deal with article writing/maintenance/backlogs. bibliomaniac15 04:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Dweller, it is, indeed, perennial. However, CCC and the current discussion I mentioned shows that some change might be acceptable to the community. I realise that a proposal like the one I described would be asking our 'crats to undertake a certain amount of work, which is why I wanted to ask here, before even suggesting it anywhere else.

@bibliomaniac15, 1. Good point; I've modified line #6 above - does that help? 2. I think that you might consider it a bad idea because, currently, SysOp is such a big deal; the entire purpose of this is to de-mystify things somewhat - and it'd be absolutely clear to the user that their temporary status might be removed at any point - plus, this is a one-month experiment only. 3. I believe that the experiment itself might result in perhaps 20 new admins (via RfA after it); considering the plummeting numbers of new admins (2007, 408; in 2008, 201; in 2009, 119; in 2010, 75. 2011, so far, 48^ref), I think the necessary work would be a net gain, long-term.  Chzz  ►  17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with bibliomaniac. This is just a tough idea to manage well. Andrevan@ 07:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK; thanks for input. I'm trying, here, to get a proposal that can make progress; the current one is teetering around that 66% barrier; I guess I'm trying to find a way forwards; if a couple of 'crats bought in to the idea, it could work; if not, fair enough, back to the drawing-board.  Chzz  ►  03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear all,

I have been on a rather long wiki break, and have returned to my administrative privileges having been suspended. I totally understand the reasons given: that administrative access was removed simply due to inactivity. However I am ready to return to activity, and would appreciate my account status being restored.

Many thanks! ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Over the last few years, a number of Wikimedia Foundation staff have created accounts with names containing the identifier "(WMF)" in their names (see, for example, User:Philippe (WMF) or User:Christine (WMF)). From what I understand, it's not possible for a random individual to create such an account; establishing a username with the "(WMF)" string requires special privileges. When these staff take official (or WP:OFFICE) actions on Wikipedia, they generally do so using their WMF accounts. (When they act as 'regular' editors, these individuals have normal non-WMF-labelled accounts.) Editors (including admins and 'crats) here are aware that actions taken by (WMF) accounts aren't subject to the usual mechanisms for reversal or dispute—when a concern arises it has to be taken up directly with the WMF office. An editor who reverses a WMF office action faces immediate blocking; an admin risks desysopping.

Which brings us to my concern. As of right about now, Christine's (User:Christine (WMF)) contract with the WMF has expired. To her credit, she has quite responsibly added a notification to her WMF account's userpage noting that she is no longer a member of the WMF staff ([17]). Nevertheless, she still has access to an account with the (WMF) tag, which means that she or – much more troublingly – someone who cracks her account would be able to take mischievous actions under the (purported) aegis of the Foundation.

While this is the first retirement of a staff member with a (WMF) account of which I am aware, I am sure that it won't be the last. We really don't want to leave accounts lying around that appear to have special privileges for making irreversible edits. As a matter of good practice, we should probably establish a standard process for handling the retirement of WMF staff, including and especially their user accounts. I would suggest renaming WMF accounts to make clear their current status—for example, renaming User:Christine (WMF) to User:Christine (WMF-retired) or similar. Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a reasonable request, I think. Have you talked to the WMF about it? bibliomaniac15 05:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also amenable to the idea, provided WMF is on board. It might be better to just block the account so no one can use it, rather than renaming it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think blocking makes more sense. Renaming would created edits that appear to be attributed to (WMF-retired) when they were originally (WMF). That labeling could confuse people who look at those edits after the fact. I don't see any reason why the official accounts should be used after the end of official employment, even with a -retired designation. I'd suggest it is better to simply lock the accounts so they can't be used any more. Dragons flight (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Another related case is Sross (Public Policy) (talk · contribs) - I believe his employment on that project ended in September.Maybe we should have a category for WMF accounts? D'oh, Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff  Chzz  ►  14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, we deal with this internally: I had that account globally locked yesterday. She has no access to it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to back up Philippe (ingrained habit!); my staff account is indeed no longer active, and I cannot log into it. This account is my personal, volunteer account, which is cited on User:Christine (WMF)'s userpage, and also disclosed on my personal user page. FWIW, I'd also oppose a rename for User:Dragons flight's reasonings. Kethryvis (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's no problem then. Is there a standard procedure for dealing with the retired/expired accounts of Wikimedia staff, and is there someone at the Foundation who is responsible for closing/locking out these accounts? From what I've gleaned from the Steward handbook, it's not possible for non-stewards to verify that an account has been locked, so it would be reassuring to know that there is some sort of formal process that makes sure that this bit of bookkeeping is done when necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a (semi)standard procedure. Office IT closes the accounts, and those with advanced privileges are referred to me for a decision. In some cases, users came to the Foundation with certain rights, and they should leave with those. Not everyone has the (WMF) accounts, and so there are a few (really old) accounts that take some manual work and decision making. As we've grown, we havne't always been great about this, but the current process seems to work pretty well. The hard part is all the one-off accounts and privileges for closed wikis, fundraising systems, etc. Extra eyes are always welcome. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TenOfAllTrades. Non-stewards can verify if an account has been locked using a number of methods. Every user has read-only access to Special:CentralAuth, which will tell them the status of a global account. There is also the Toolserver SUL tool which also has the status on the left hand side. Finally there is the global account log on Meta-Wiki which is searchable like all the other public logs. Hope it helps. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Or you can install NAVPOP and just hover over the account link. :) Amalthea 10:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• What about MGodwin (talk · contribs)? Apparently he stepped down as general counsel last year, but his account still has admin privs. As far as I can tell, he hasn't made any admin actions since leaving the WMF, but he has edited occasionally, so it doesn't appear that his account is locked. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  FYI, User:MGodwin (formerly Mikegodwin) was granted adminship "as a Foundation decision" at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin. –xeno^talk 16:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, per [18], Mike's staff rights were removed upon his departure. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this, Philippe. What (if anything) should be done as regards his administrative permissions? With the utmost respect to Mr. Godwin, the permissions were granted by the Foundation after the community had just over 24 hours to opine on the RFA he submitted. While it is a not a pressing matter (given that he uses the permissions rarely if ever), it does strike me as a matter of good housekeeping to clarify whether the permissions should be retained or removed following his departure. –xeno^talk 14:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Its 2.5 years since Mike used an advanced permission [19] but he continues to make the occasional edit every month or so. I'd say there was probably no risk leaving him an admin but since he never passed an RFA its a bit messy so some guidence from the office would be useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't look urgent. Long term though IMHO the cleanest resolution would be for him to either voluntarily turn in the bit, or if he was still interested in the access voluntarily run an RFA. As a rule it does seem that adminship granted solely due to his employment shouldn't carry on after that employment has ended without at least reaffirming the communities support.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Urgent, nah. But as a general practice, WMF-granted rights should be removed by the WMF at the end of employment. Mike's rights were granted by the WMF because of his employment status, and should have been removed (both +sysop and +staff) when he left the foundation. I think it would resolve the issue if Philippe were to see to it that his admin bit was removed as well. Nathan ^T 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of precidence, I think WMF should weigh in. But in all honesty, if the person left their position in good standing, I can't see why we wouldn't accept their tenure at the foundation as an alternative means for adminship. He obviously isn't a threat to hurt the project which is the core issue of an RfA. If he were to run for adminship, I can't see any reason why anybody would oppose---he has a 2.5 year record of not breaking anything. I also don't think somebody who served the community for so long and so worthily should be subject to this process... and I mean that seriously. Most people who run for admin can do so anonymously. Thus, if they are ripped to shreds in the RfA, it is unlikely to negatively affect them professionally. But a former WMF member has their real name associated with their accounts; if they "run" for RfA, they run the risk of people with vendetta's criticizing them in a public manner in a way that might impact them professionally. For this reason, IMO, if somebody has been trusted with the bit while working for WMF and they leave in good standing, I see no reason to remove the bit.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I on the other hand see no reason why tenure at the WMF should confer adminship, much less why it should survive leaving the WMF. I can think of at least one current WMF employee who ought to be desysoped right now. Malleus Fatuorum 05:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But that wouldn't stop us from removing the bit afterwards---I know easier said than done. But I think this is a scenario where the WMF could chime in and say, "This person is leaving in good standing, has been an asset to the community, and thus gets to keep the bit." They could also say, "Nah, we're removing it." But I think it is a situation where the foundation should make the call. I just can't get worked up about this as I can't see anybody seriously objecting to Mike's having the bit.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WMF would want to make those sorts of comments about departing staff members, which might open up a can of worms. Mr Godwin had the permission granted to him because he was legal counsel. He isn't anymore, so he should resign or the WMF should request the removal of his rights. The local permission should arguably have been removed when the global staff userright was created anyway. As to serious objection, there seems little point going into it, but suffice it to say that I would oppose an RfA for Mr Godwin. WJBscribe (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was entirely appropriate for Mike to be granted sysop rights due to his position as counsel. However, he no longer holds that position, so the sysop rights should be removed. If he should desire the rights again, he can apply in the normal way.--SPhilbrickT 12:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is zero chance that somebody in his position would subject themselves to the "normal way." Since his account uses his real name, he has a professional affiliation with Wikipedia, running would subject his professional reputation to too much unaccountable scrutiny. Now what are the odds that his RfA would fail? Close to zero. You might have a few malcontents raise objections, but does anybody honestly feel that he is a danger to the project? Does anybody honestly think that he would vandalize or use his tools destructively? (Again remember if he does so, it would be under his professional name on a project where he used to work.) The risk is zero. If he does use his tools just once, does anybody doubt that it would be for the benefit of the project? Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal". Not only that, but we are constantly lamenting the fact that it is treated like a trophy.

So how about this, instead of just people who used to work at WP, senior staff members of the project can keep the bit (assuming they left WMF in good standing.) Either way, this is, IMHO, a perfect situation to IAR. I see zero risk in his keeping the bit.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no risk in him keeping the bit, and I honestly don't mind if he does or not, but with a total of 300-odd edits I think it is a near certainty that an RfA would fail (and just reading this conversation, I can see few other obvious reasons why he would get opposed). Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA isn't just about determining whether someone would be a danger to the project if they were given admin tools. We expect that all prospective administrators have enough experience of the project and our community to judge when administrative tools should and should not be used. If an administrator doesn't have that experience then their uses of the tools may be inappropriate even if they are well-intentioned. Mike Godwin has a very low edit count (335) and has done a total of three admin actions, all related to his legal work. I really don't think an RfA has any chance of passing. Hut 8.5 23:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Balloonman here. While I do think that if he went through an RfA it would fail, there's pretty much zero risk to his account having the tools for the reasons Baloonman stated. I think he can be trusted to keep the tools (although I have no opinion whether he should or not) regardless of experience; he knows better than to misuse them (intentionally or not, in my opinion, as I think he would have the clue level needed to know to ask if it was a sketchy situation for using them). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason behind having a bigger edit history is because we generally can't get to know somebody after so few edits. We generally can't tell if somebody has the proper temperment/attitude to be an admin, and can't tell if they know the culture/policies. In this case, those issues are not true. We know who he is. We know that he knows Wikipedia, probably better than most people. Despite his low edit count, he has been consulted on numerous ethical and legal issues facing WP... online, via private correspondence, and at the WMF. There is zero doubt that he knows Wikipedia, the culture, and the environment.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to nit-pick a bit: Knowing the legal aspects and the functioning of Wikipedia and the WMF from the legal and ethical standpoints is not the same thing as knowing and understanding our policies and guidelines. Now that said; I also agree that he should be able to keep the couple extra buttons for the same or similar reasons. This is not a man who's going to go off half-cocked and blow up the pedia. He is a professional, and I don't think for one second there would ever be an instance that his [admin] actions would bring a problem to our project with regards to the extra bits. — Ched :  ?  13:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, and to complicate this slightly further, I have obligations to WMF that don't ever end, even if my employment does. (Legal ethics obligations, for example.) I am not invested in any particular outcome of this decision, since the likelihood of my taking any policy action without consulting currrent counsel is very low (near zero). Maybe this is an investigation of a solution that doesn't yet have a problem? I'm proud of my affiliation with WP, as my occasional editing shows, I hope, and I don't know that it makes sense to treat WP as a kind of paramilitary organization - I'd like to think that my ongoing experience as a current and former employee remains valuable and is recognized as such. Believe me, if I thought my current status would create a problem, I'd retire myself! Still like making the occasional improvement, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.42.82 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2011

This logged out edit was confirmed to be made by MGodwin [20].

I for one would like the definition of "under a cloud" to be as clear as possible - and I think it would be useful if we could enshrine it as policy. I'd welcome some help at the start I made at Wikipedia:Under a cloud --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that 'under a cloud' is favoured as a technical term anymore; WP:BUR guides bureaucrats to check for evidence that an individual "may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions". This seems clear enough to me. –xeno^talk 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's useful. As the term is in common parlance (see above) the page I created has some value: perhaps as a redirect? --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed 'under a cloud' is still in use as a colloquial term; so the page could describe the history of the term, note that it has been deprecated from use in guideline/policy/information pages, and provide a list of decisions that were informed by so-called 'clouds' as a useful reference. –xeno^talk 14:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new term of art to go with the new definition. "Under a cloud" is still the shorthand, if only because the detailed policy doesn't lend itself to an easy replacement. I notice that WP:BUR doesn't actually specify what to do in such circumstances. Traditionally, return of the tools after a resignation under a cloud required either an ArbCom request or a new RfA. Above I suggested a thorough review, but I'm not sure ArbCom/RfA is necessary or appropriate. Perhaps the page should be expanded with a little bit more guidance? Nathan ^T 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think some sort of guideline would be helpful to the 'crats on occasion. Often WP:FORMER doesn't document much about a return/removal of tools, and it can be easy after time to forget the circumstances under which they were returned. I'm not trying to slight or underestimate the abilities of our crats here, simply that often finding the proper history can be elusive after time. To be frank, I'd also like to see a bit more in the line of links at the wp:former page so research could be conducted a bit more expediently. ... but - wish in one hand I suppose. Anyway .. I commend Doug on his efforts here. — Ched :  ?  17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that was aimed at me, thanks... but I'm not Doug. See the message at the top of my user talk. :*) --Dweller (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am so very sorry. — Ched :  ?  20:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be - it's fine! --Dweller (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, I'd think it'd be fairly clear, from looking at edits around the time of the removal request; and I'm always afraid of CREEP. But I suppose something might be a good idea. How about if any request for reinstatement was posted (with some neat, easy, neutral template) to AN for 48 hours before actioning it? Or should that be ANI? Or is this a Bad Idea? I'm just thinking that, a) if it was always announced on AN/I, it might reduce any "ooh but it wasn't a cloud!" arguments, and b) posting anything there means a whole bunch of people will shout if there is any concern. Alternatively, I might be talking shit, and creating DRAMA. Opinions always most welcome.  Chzz  ►  17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't logged into to make edits on Wikipedia for one year, but I am planning to be active again. I am requesting re-instate as per the suggested procedure message on my Talk page Regards, -- Lexor|Talk 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done --Dweller (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. Could you please take over my tools. I'm done using them, need some R&R now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Any chance you could block me too, just for a couple of months?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just use Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Regards SoWhy 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, this removal of the tools should be considered "under a cloud." While there was no RfC or arbitration case, there was a dispute over one of his blocks and a long string of insults and other improper behavior (seemingly aimed at providing a clean break for Maunus from Wikipedia), and his tools should probably not be restored without a more thorough review. Nathan ^T 18:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record the "insults and improper behavior" was after I had resigned the tools. Maunus (talk · contribs)

Noted. Hopefully others noted it as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I find the concept messy and awkward. See below. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge of the situation is limited to what is on this page, but, at face value, someone who got involved in a dispute about one of his or her blocks, got into a heated argument, and then decides to take some time off to cool down does not appear to be "resigning the tools to evade scrutiny". The scrutiny is already there. Had an RfAr been filed? Had even an RfCU been filed (and that would not result in tool removal). Unless I'm missing something, which is highly probable, I don't think this would be considered problematic. "Evading scrutiny/Under a cloud" usually means someone who is under an RfAr, or who is being discussed on WP:AN/ANI for gross violation of admin rules that would lead to an RfAR/Desysop, who then resigns the tools to escape formal removal or sanctions. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree - absent any apparent risk of losing the tools forcibly, I don't see why there's any reason to refuse returning them on request. Now, should this somehow escalate into an arb case in Maunus's absence, that's another story, but I highly doubt that'll happen. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, but think it's a situation caused by lack of clarity as to what "under a cloud" means. See below. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood, which is why I posted about this specific case :) -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: For the record, are we bureaucrats agreed that Maunus (talk · contribs) may request his tools back without prejudice barring future developments? -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Aye --Dweller (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed as the "cloud" mentioned above is more of a brief light mist in the morning sun. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Aye Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please can you remove the bit from my account thanks. If its possible, I'd like to retain rollback and ipblockexempt as I work in the gulf and in most gulf countries internet access is streamed through a proxy which can appear as a single ip address, depending where I am when I edit. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, you could have simply added rollback and ipblockexempt yourself as last time, but from what I gather above you wanted a third party to do so, so I have gone ahead and added them in the meantime. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your work. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, one slightly embarrassing request, please can you unprotect User:Spartaz/Blah so I can change my status and userboxen? I wasn't expecting you to act so quickly :-) Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

   Done I used a semi-protection rather than a full unprotect, is that okey or do you want it completely unprotected? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many admins who've met the threshold for tool removal who are listed on List of Missing Wikipedians. I thought it'd be best to leave a notice on the BN, do tell me if I should have sought another venue of discussion. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:04pm • 09:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through the entries with on the page and only user eligible for desysopping (after the necessary notifications) is YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), last edit on 23 November 2010 and last logged action on 19 November 2010. The other admins on the list with their last activities can be seen in the following collapsed table. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin	Last edit	Last logged action	Notes
Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	4 September 2011	26 June 2008
El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	14 September 2011	29 June 2009	2 years inactivity before last edit
Filiocht (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	25 January 2011	18 March 2008
Hall Monitor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	3 February 2011	3 February 2011
Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	16 December 2011	31 May 2010
Kilo-Lima (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	26 November 2011	2 November 2011
Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	17 September 2011	31 March 2008	Also a bureaucrat.
MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	27 September 2011	16 December 2009	Also a edit filter manager.
Mike 7 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	19 December 2011	5 March 2009
Omegatron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	6 December 2011	1 July 2010
PedanticallySpeaking (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	1 November 2011	4 December 2006
Sannse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	24 August 2011	16 February 2011
ThaddeusB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	25 February 2011	23 May 2010	Also a edit filter manager.
Tom- (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	1 February 2011	27 January 2008
Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)	27 October 2011	2 August 2010

• Procedural removal for inactivity is coordinated at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. No further duplication of effort is advised or required. –xeno^talk 13:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

At the suggestion of several editors in whom I invest longtime trust (including my nominator, a wikifriend of 6 years), I'm withdrawing my candidacy at this time. I had hoped that by standing firm and replying to critique I could convince opposers to rethink their assertions. It appears that my determination may be seen by some as selfishness, stubbornness and a violation of WP:POINT. The last thing I wanted to do was hurt the pedia, speak ill of formal processes, or the good faith assertions made during such processes. I'd asked a bureaucrat last night to reopen the procedure just closed. In retrospect I should have asked that editor to reopen long enough I could make a withdrawal statement, then close for good. I will apologize to that trusted servant on user talk and make a brief withdrawal statement in the next few minutes. After my datestamp there, I encourage any bureaucrat to close the procedure. Thanks for your service. BusterD (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! BusterD (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for an impartial bureaucrat to close the RfC discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship#RfC:_Should_we_begin_a_trial.3F. This discussion was an open RfC for 30 days and was on WP:CENT for about the same amount of time, and proposes a new process whereby users can temporarily be assigned a subset of administrator tools, in order to help complete work, and to gain experience. It's quite a lot of reading, just to warn you. :-) As noted there, I'm prepared to accept the conclusion whatever it is. Thank you for your help! Dcoetzee 08:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to have my sysop bit back. I resigned in 2008 in uncontroversial circumstances, so I think there's no problem about it:) Max Semenik (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the request from 2008 at the moment - can you (or someone else) help, please? --Dweller (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was this showing that MaxSem desysopped himself; I could not find a request anywhere. As far as I am aware and can remember, MaxSem did resign in uncontroversial circumstances, and to see his name here is a pleasant surprise. Hope that helps, Dweller. Acalamari 20:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, helpful. Contribs from Dec 08 bear out Acalamari's view and now that I've also looked at global contribs, I'd be happy to approve this request and warmly welcome you back, Max. Someone around to second? Otherwise, if there's no dissent I'll resysop myself tomorrow morning my time. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Max Semenik (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, why is this case different from the request by LC in August (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22#Request by LC). LC had made no edits for almost nine years. MaxSem had made none for three years. Perhaps that's a sufficient difference. However, most ex-admins who request the bit back after a year or more of absence start actively editing numerous pages, which allows an analysis of their editing pattern to see if they are the same editor. MaxSem's request does show that he is aware of his own history, but I am concerned that this might be a hijacked account.-gadfium 03:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Given this edit and that MaxSem used to be a steward (and therefore identified to the WMF), I think it would be fairly straightforward for Max to verify that his account has not been hijacked. Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Because I will need to edit the MediaWiki namespace for tuning Extension:FeaturedFeeds configuration after its deployment withing 1-2 weeks, I'd like to be able to do so as a comunity member, not just staffer. Max Semenik (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

MaxSem's edits since I posted here have gone a long way towards convincing me that he's genuine.-gadfium 08:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, although he'd been inactive on en: Max's global log was fairly persuasive. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just speedily approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addihockey10 (automated) as an uncontroversial task, but I'm not sure whether it should be given a bot flag or left to run unflagged. The edit rate is about 6-10 EPM according to Addihockey10 (looks to be a bit lower than that going through his contribs), which isn't a lot, but a bot flag would be helpful. The issue is that the account isn't a strict "bot" account (i.e. an automated account with a "Bot" at the end), but rather one intended for AWB/Huggling, and I don't think we give bot flags to those. A separate, dedicated account cannot be used because the bot runs cross-wiki, and it is already flagged as "Addihockey10 (automated)" on a few other wikis, as I was told. So what do 'crats think? Best, — The Earwig ^(talk) 04:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that we don't give bot flags to manually run tasks. Andrevan@ 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aye, he's running it from his main account (which is used for non-bot edits), and it doesn't look like he has any particular need for the high limit if the edit rate is going to be kept that low. Manually reviewed edits run from a primary account don't get flagged. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As apparently being in the same ε-closure isn't enough for some people, I guess I'll have to make the state transition explicitly...Can someone resysop the Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) account? Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please desysop Malcolm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) further to the Arbitration Committee motion announced here. Thank you. Risker (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Many thanks buddies. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some usurp requests that have been pending awhile and haven't been fulfilled because I'm the only person working the page and I'm uncertain on how to handle them. I would appreciate the input of some other crats, specifically on:

• Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#SalfEnergy_.E2.86.92_Wagner
• Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#None_.28SUL_request.29_.E2.86.92_DLR

Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have been very inactive, so if what I'm saying is contrary to current practice, I welcome correction (including from non-crats). That said, in the case of SalfEnergy, I'd be inclined do the rename since the enwiki user is by far the most active. By similar reasoning, for None, I'd be inclined to turn the request down simply because, while the current English DLR user has been inactive since 2004, they have nearly as many edits as the French user requesting the usurp, so there's no compelling case that the later should control the SUL. But I should re-emphasize that I'm not aware of present practice, and I'd suggest that no usurps take place until more folks chime in. -- Pakaran 03:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pakaran and have commented at both requests. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Chiming in at the usurp page. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd probably lean slightly on the side of granting the 'DLR' request as well, given that the en.wiki user is inactive for over 9 years and the requesting user already controls the SUL. –xeno^talk 14:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that he already has the SUL - I took it that he was thinking of doing so. Will amend my response accordingly. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please desysop me. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

Done, thanks for your work here. I've reinstated some of the other tags (rollback etc), if I missed something, ping me. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Back in 2004 I have joined a encyclopedia. In 2005 I became an admin. It was not perfect then, but in the mean time some of the problems grown, some others came up. Say, WP is a battleground, too many people insult and belittle others open and covertly. WP lended space to more and more activisms of all kind, for or against this and that. Lately WP became a political party itself - see Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, specially today's edit by Jimbo - I have not joined a political party. I refuse to be pulled into one. Please remove my admin rights. - Nabla (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your many years of service. Since you have resigned uncontroversially, you may request resysopping at any time. Andrevan@ 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - Nabla (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm helping her out. Her current name is related to a "real-world" group. Please see her talk page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Someone please remember to unblock her. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! I'd be much obliged if my adminship could be restored; I'm in the process of recovery from a two-year WikiDeath. Cheers! — madman bum and angel 22:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done as clearly uncontroversial following removal for inactivity; welcome back! I recently returned myself. -- Pakaran 04:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There's been an interesting discussion over at RfA talk, where its came to light that at least one oppose voter is reluctant to soften criticism in case it weakens their Oppose in close call situations. Per "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." from WP:Civility and my general impression of Crats, Id guess you actually give more weight to constructive thoughtful oppose votes like this , compared to overly terse or otherwise non constructive !votes. Folk have been looking for workable incremental improvements that could be made to the levels of civility at RfA, so if its true you'd give weighting to the more constructive opposes, maybe one of you could make a statement to confirm? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, as you're mixing together three different things: strength of comment, civility and rationale.

Taking them in turn, as we know from the current ArbCom case, civility is a difficult thing to measure objectively. I would hope that blatantly incivil comments will be struck by the contributor or removed by other admins. As such, speaking for myself, it'd hard for me to give hard and fast rules about how I'd weigh incivil comments.

However, strength of comment (incivility aside) and good rationale are useful aids to judging consensus and not just for myself. I've seen several other Crats mention balance of weak/strong supports and opposes in their assessments. Not sure that's too helpful, however. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the RFC with respect to the January 18 SOPA blackout proposal has now been closed in favour of a global blackout. The closing discussion recommends that any ongoing RFA be suspended during the 24-hour blackout. Risker (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I've incremented the open RFA by one day and I or another crat will lock the RFA during the blackout. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I added an HTML comment discouraging people from beginning new RfAs during this period. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This "blackout" already comes at too high a price for my liking. I personally think that for Wikipedia as a whole to take such an overly political stance goes completely against the principles that I believed underpinned it. Whilst it is probably true that a sizeable majority of editors would oppose SOPA, I don't think NPOV should apply only to articles. Where do we now draw the line? To my mind, there are far greater ills in the world than SOPA. Will we start having blackouts in protest of those? This is the first time that editors have been canvassed on their political views and actively encouraged to adopt a particular position. We are a long way from striving towards political neutrality today and that saddens me enormously. WJBscribe (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole blackout is so incredibly misguided that I believe we should not adjust any "countdowns" that would be impacted by it. If "we" are going to shut down the site for a day for no reason other than political grand standing, then we should force ourselves to suffer the consequences. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, I agree wholeheartedly with you both, but knowing WP's editor composition, realized it was useless to spend my time debating things. The crowd was so great rushing towards the cliff that it would be futile to argue with them or try to get in the way. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove my sysop bit. I've had a great run, and I'm done now. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted that this is not under a cloud, but I'm a about to go to bed, so I'll get around to doing this tomorrow and recommend you give it a second thought in the interim. MBisanz ^talk 06:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MBisanz. There is no cloud here. Even though it's easy enough to restore it, please reconsider this; perhaps just take a short time off to sort things out and consider what you want to do. Decisions made in the heat of the moment are not always the best ones. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GTBacchus would be a great loss. We need him. I've emailed him to ask him to reconsider. Tony (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not the heat of the moment. I just haven't been thinking aloud previous to now, so nobody knew I was considering leaving. I got upset with an editor, it's true, but I wouldn't ask to remove the bit if this hadn't been a long time coming. I'm not one to say something like this before the decision's final.

This feels like the right move, after a long, good run. I put a lot of love into this project, and I got a lot back. It's been a while since it's been fun, though. Time to move on. If I chose a moment that makes a statement, then I hope the statement is heard and heeded. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood and done. Thank you for your years of service. Let us know if you want them back ever. MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I may do that someday. Keep the faith, and may this work be rewarding for you for a long, long time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please arrange for User:Icairns to be removed from Admin mode and Edit mode in Wikipedia with immediate effect. This is final, unwelcome, but necessary. Vandal-fighting is hard enough on its own - I'm not prepared to do this with a compromised account. Hopefully, you'll have alternative candidates prepared and able to take over. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame to see you leave over a block. We all made mistakes that you made, and this just a minor blemish, nothing serious. Also for the bureaucrats will this be considered as "under a cloud" as he resigned right after a revert warring block? Thanks Secret ^account 00:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would not think this is under a cloud; what is Ian Cairns trying to avoid by giving up the bit? The block is already in place. Just because someone is frustrated with an outcome doesn't mean that they are trying to avoid scrutiny. Now if Ian was a party to an RfAR or even an RfC, and left so that the request would be closed, that would be "cloud-worthy". Of course, I am just one 'crat, and I always remain open to changing my mind if suitably moved by convincing arguments :) -- Avi (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the block for edit-warring has expired and this request was made when it did - take a look at the signature. WilliamH (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As the blocking admin and as an arb, but not a 'crat, I would not consider this under a cloud, and wish Icarns would reconsider. Courcelles 01:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • ...And as the unblock request reviewing admin, I would not consider this to be under a cloud. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea I was just asking because I don't consider it as under a cloud block neither, but the current definition is kinda vague. Secret ^account 01:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is dead and unlikely to lead to further action, then no it would not be under a cloud. EG if he was unblocked and a few days without issue passed. If the issue was alive and active... and possibly leading to further action, then yes it would be under a cloud. I took a quick look at the talk page and it looks as if this user was blocked for violating 3RR and using the tools to do so. While the user argues that he had old consensus on his side, that doesn't matter. 3RR is intended to get people back to the discussion table and to get others to agree that consensus still exists. The user doesn't accept that position and believes his use of the tools is justified. The blocking admin wrote, If you were not an admin, I would have pulled your rollback ability for this incident, as you have greatly misused the rollback tool. I would call that under a cloud as he is packing up the tools during the dispute for which he was admonished for misuse of the tool. If a few days had passed, then I would concur that it wasn't an issue.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, the blocking admin had neither the authority nor the ability to remove the administrative bit. Secondly, the block had expired at the time of the request. The operative point here is not the nebulous term referring to water droplets, it is whether or not the relinquishment of the tools was done in order to prevent sanctions or the imminent threat of sanctions, neither of which exist here. Violating the 3RR rule, to the best of my knowledge, has never been considered bit-removal-worthy. -- Avi (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant section of Wikipedia:Rollback, as Courcelles refers to, is that it is repeated misuse which may bring about ArbCom intervention/desysopping. Reading the situation in light of policy/guidelines and both perspectives expressed here, although the "cloud" aspect of this is the misuse of an administrative tool, this is apparently only the first instance. That in itself should not be a barrier for re-sysopping because had he not asked for the tools to be taken away, he would still have them legitimately. However in the event of any future request, I would recommend that Ian Cairns is warned/invited to give assurance that he will not be using rollback like that in future. WilliamH (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Misuse" of rollback is not an administrator issue; any autoconfirmed user is eligible to have it granted. Bluntly, it doesn't make a difference whether someone uses rollback or simply reverts without an edit summary, and I think we should stop wasting time making use of a technical tool a social faux pas. Edit warring is edit warring. This administrator has resigned in good standing and not under any controversial circumstances. Risker (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Just weighing in as another bureaucrat agreeing that Ian isn't retiring under a cloud. Nothing is being avoided by retiring, and that's what the whole point of that phrase is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Please let us know if you want them back, or want the usual trusted-user tools (from your request, I am assuming you do not). I'm sad to see you go, and thank you for your long service. For the record, I concur with Avi, and find it difficult to think of a circumstance where a single 3rr block, expired before resignation, on an unprotected article, would count as under a cloud. -- Pakaran 03:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked for my bit to be removed here, but I've decided to end my wikibreak. Could a 'crat please restore my admin rights?  -- Lear's Fool 08:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I see no cause for concern here, especially since the user resigned on Sept. 1 and had very little on-wiki activity in the preceding week. -- Pakaran 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Neither did I; looking at the contributions for User:Lear's Fool around that time showed no evidence of any issues either. Welcome back! -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.  -- Lear's Fool 04:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a close at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: Rcsprinter123; looks like it's accidentally been kept open for... a while. :P Cheers, — madman 17:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Per this diff, and the various comments at User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 17#For posterity, I'd like to request the admin bit be restored. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke schön! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Sarek has inspired me. I handed in my bit about 9 months back. As a result I've just had 9 months of getting to fall in love with Wikipedia all over again, writing articles, adding good content and just having a lovely time. Hence this seems like a good time to have all that positive energy beaten out of me by taking on admin duties again (joke!). Manning (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A username I unblocked for rename has requested what appears to be an uncontroversial rename and has asked me about when it would be done. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#cherryrakistadotcom_.E2.86.92_MissCA? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved from AN (Original request) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit summary seems to show that my account has been hacked (unlikely, but one never knows), as I was not editing that day. Perhaps there was a malfunction with my tablet that set off this revert. I was viewing signed in but not editing. At any rate, as I'm inactive and this irregular activity occurred, I was wondering what the current means for giving up the tools is. I don't want to run the risk of my tools being used for vandalism. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I, as a crat, can remove them upon request. But, I'd really like a checkuser to establish account ownership so there isn't any confusion if you come back later. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MBiz, I'm not sure of what the reluctancy is to remove the bit. The request was made over at WP:AN by the account. This means that either the request is actually being made by Dlohcierekim in which case it should be honored or the request is being made by somebody who has hacked into Dlohcierekim's account in which case it should be required. If Dlohcierekim comes back and says, "No it wasn't me." Then at that point we could insist upon confirming identity, but removing the bit sounds like reasonable precaution based upon a legit request from the account in question.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, is it just that single edit? Because that kind of edit is extremely easy to make accidentally (just a single mouse click to the Twinkle "rollback (vandal)" link, and having your sysop bit removed wouldn't actually prevent that from happening in the future since it's a standard Twinkle function. 28bytes (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) In addition, Dlohcierekim has a committed identity, so it should be easy to confirm identity later, if necessary.

And to add, if you (Dlohcierekim) want to turn in the flag due to inactivity, that's certainly OK, but I'd hate for you to run into a hassle later should you want to pick the mop back up. A quick checkuser confirmation that everything's in order (e.g. just an accidental mouse click) could save you from any future hassles. 28bytes (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) The edit in question was consistent with an edit that could have been made with a tablet computer and the IP address that was used to make it geolocates to the same location as this edit. That's the best description of the situation and I don't see any obvious red flags. For what it's worth from previous experience using tablet computers, it wouldn't be impossible to accidentally press the many potential rollback buttons that come and go on one's watch list. Dlohcierekim, if there's anything else you think I should know but would prefer a smaller audience, you are welcome to e-mail me in absolute confidence in my capacity as a functionary. WilliamH (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bman, I didn't act because he didn't say he actually wanted it removed; he wanted to know how to request it's removal. I highly doubted it was a hacked account by his description (I've done the same thing on my tablet) and didn't want to de-bit him if he was merely thinking of asking for it and wanted to know where to do it. I'm still very hesitant about having the power to remove. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW I have some old emails from Dloh (I was his nominator at RFA) so could, possibly, help if a need arises to check identity. I would also add that the style of writing from the op is very much Dloh's. Pedro :  Chat  10:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Valid enough request. Thanks for everything you've done, Dlohcierekim. Here's hoping you come back around at some point. (FYI, I didn't go ahead and grant you rollback, since you didn't specifically ask for it; just say the word and I'll give you that one) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think other Crats may take an interest in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal:_Remove_the_right_to_vanish --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Rlevse "vanished" in 2010 and his account was renamed User:Vanished 6551232. He has since returned as user:PumpkinSky, and possibly one or more previous accounts. (I wrote to PumpkinSky using his Wikipedia email account and received a reply from Rlevse.) I believe it is standard to undo the renaming when editors return from an RTV.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually just block the renamed account. Maybe we've done some renames like this, but do we have any good examples to go by? MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note, thought it's not directly relevant to the naming issue, that the user talk page was also deleted, which I do not believe is normally done.

As for the naming issue, WP:RTV says: If the user returns, the "vanishing" may be fully reversed; the old and new accounts will be linked; and any outstanding sanctions and similar will be resumed.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, ok, I've just scanned the last 5,000 renames and didn't see any under that rule. I'm going to keep looking. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to? Is there any doubt that the user has un-vanished?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I ended up finding one possible example and one definite example in the last 10,000 renames with Garydubh (talk · contribs) by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs). Given how infrequently this is done (there have only been 22,000 renames ever), I want more opinions on how to proceed. Also, the user in question has 97,000 edits, which is beyond the limit of the system to currently rename, so we would need to file the request via bugzilla and somehow convince a sysadmin it is worth their time to do from the server side. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant statistic would not be how many users have been renamed, but rather how many vanished users have returned and had their old usernames maintained as "Vanished", or have been renamed back to their original name.

How did the user get their name changed before if it already went over the limit?   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That first statistic will be almost impossible to find given the non-standard RTV renaming structure and the use of revdel on the logs, but I would wager the number of users involuntarily renamed back to their original name is under five. Also, the limit used to be 200,000 (possibly 2,000,000) until we realized the extension was so faulty it was constantly breaking accounts. It still frequently breaks accounts over 10,000. I remember crashing servers and freezing the wiki when the limit was at 200,000 instead of the current 50,000. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the edit limit. I remember having to abandon my old account because I had more than 10,000 edits (or whatever the exact limit was in 2005).

Aside from precedent, the guideline seems to call for undoing vanishing when an editor returns. Since this return has been controversial, it seems to be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually know if it's appropriate or not in this case, but given that it would be involuntary, I would have the knee-jerk concerns of privacy and attribution. Whatever the guideline says, I believe the precedent is simply to hardblock the renamed user and forget about them. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In lieu of renaming, which I now understand is technically difficult, I'll post a note on the user page that he has returned, and start a DRV to undelete the user talk page. Those will substantially undo the vanishing, per the guideline.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. You could also just ask AGK or Avi to undue their deletion. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But it looks like user:Tristessa de St Ange was the deleting admin. However she has not been active since November. She said there were privacy issues and to contact her before restoring the page, so I've written to her.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are only 5 edits on the talk page of "Vanished". User talk:Rlevse still exists and the history has not been deleted. Some variant of {{Former account}} should be sufficient in lieu of a re-rename, I would think. -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! I hand't noticed that the Rlevse talk page still existed under that name. I was wondering why there were only five edits to the "vanished" account. The template:Former account doesn't seem to have the right wording. I left a simple message to the same effect and will also post one on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of former crat's actions

Since it involves the actions of a (former) bureaucrat, this thread may be of interest to current bureaucrats. WP:AN#Rlevse's actions as bureaucrat.   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; opinion noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Under controversial circumstances. -- Avi (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much response there from bureaucrats. While the question of whether JoJo actually made the !votes or not, is there any consensus on the issue of closing an RFA in which a spouse, presumably using the same computer and IP, has already !voted?   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I commented there. -- Pakaran 03:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

An IP user contacted me on my talk page stating that they had an account whose user page I deleted after it was blanked about two years ago, asking if I could restore it. I told them they would need to log in as that user and ask again and that they could recover their login information if that account had an email associated with it, but from what I can tell it did not. I found this in the archives but this situation isn't really the same due to the long time frame involved. Is there any way short of logging in that the IP can prove they are this user? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not unless he had disclosed his email or other real life identifying information in the user page history you deleted. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing I can find to that is an image of a deceased relative that was on the page. I'm going to hazzard a guess that that is not enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose that when an admin or crat requests desysopping and states they are "invoking RTV," "requesting a courtesy vanishing," "vanishing," or otherwise making a direct allusion to WP:RTV, the reviewing crat would specifically inform them that by doing so, they could never reclaim the bit without re-seeking RFA and require the user to confirm they are aware that what they are requesting is permanent and different from retirement, leaving, or taking a break. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Seems entirely consistent with the philosophy behind RTV. Manning (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - In line with my understanding of RtV, as stated at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Under controversial circumstances and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Alternate alternate proposal: RTV users are blocked, that it is a complete disassociation from the project. -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support for all future requests, since the RtV policy has listed at least since this 2008 edit that courtesy vanishing is not intended to be temporary, and much more recently Avi made a compelling case that vanishing is a permanent decision to leave the community. Before we begin strictly enforcing that, we should make sure that users who ask to vanish know that what they're seeking is not intended to be, and will not be regarded as, temporary; for a very long time, WP:RESYSOP, for example, has said nothing about vanishing as a bar. A strong case can be made that one needs to sign a waiver of liability to ski, one should have to do something much more deliberate and informed than writing "vanishing, desysop plz?" on BN to put oneself in the situation of being unable to return to maintenance work without a full week-long RfA. (Note that on a technical basis, we can't remove the bureaucrat flag locally, so it's possible that a crat who isn't monitoring this discussion could request retirement on meta, even mentioning vanishing, and not be notified here in any manner we agree to carry out.) I guess another big question is how we will handle anyone who requests reflagging after asking to "vanish" but not explicitly confirming that this is a permanent choice. In those cases, I would lean towards allowing them the flags back, if there are not other reasons for controversial circumstances, but it should be discussed when it arises. -- Pakaran 00:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I think this should be added to the RTV page, and it should apply to any special access, tool set, or elected or appointed position: administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, arbitration committee, etc. As others have stated, it's vanishing, and if you want to vanish you are giving up anything attached to your former account. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the return of tools should be considered on an individual basis and don't think we should fetter that discretion. There shouldn't be blanket ban on users asking to vanish later reclaiming their identiy and associated user rights. WJBscribe (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose RTV is in the limelight with Fae/Rlvese accounts/issues; but I think this goes against long standing precedent and would need more than just a straw poll here at WP:BN to enact. This is a drastic change to existing policy/practice. When people leave/retire, they often do so thinking they won't be coming back. Now, when somebody comes back after having requested the right to vanish, it should cause pause amongst the 'crats... did the person who left do so under a cloud? Did they RTV when they saw a cloud forming? If so, then I think it is safe to assume they retired rather than face the cloud and thus "under a cloud." But a solid user who simply wanted to get away and invoked the right to vanish. Nah. Unless this is taken to the wider community, I can't support making that change here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  This addresses both Balloonman and Will. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I make a distinction between "retiring" and "courtesy vanishing". As I have made clear, I hope, in other places, if someone retires from Wikipedia and then wishes to return, we do so with open arms. Furthermore, unless the retirement can be viewed as being done to escape scrutiny or sanction, we have no reason to believe that the returning retiree has lost the trust of thye community and the bits are restored with no fuss. Exercising a vanishing is different; it is a request to be completely disassociated with the project, it encompasses a rename—often without redirects, it is more likely to have talk page deletions (not commonly, but more likely than other times), and we go out of our way to separate the former user id from person behind that account. In that case, rights should be removed permanently as well; that editor no longer exists for Wikipedia purposes. I think some of the problem is that people are conflating retirement with vanishing, and I think that there needs to be a clear difference made between them. -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree, if I decided that I wanted to disappear as Balloonman tomorrow and started editing under the claim of clean start the name "I'm Spartacus". And a year or two down the road, I wanted to get my bit back. THEN I think it would be appropriate for me to undergo an RfA. I've been editing as a user for two years and my actions should be judged accordingly.

  If I decide that I'm simply fed up with the beaucracy and decide to retire. And in my retiring I decide to vanish. A retiring user may wish to vanish out of concern about his/her name being linked back to them in real life and wants to avoid that potentiality. A year or two down the road I decide to come back. In that situation, I should be treated as any other returning user.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  The problem with your second point, Balloonman, is that there is no link between the old and new accounts, since vanishing occurred. The community has a right to know where it showed that so-and-so was trusted. If the returning user cannot point to an RfA due to vanishing, that means they cannot have the bit back. If you now allow vanishing to be "reversible" as your second point makes, that removes any gravity from the process. The way we have considered vanishing in Wikipedia until this point, is that it is a last resort, a way to completely divorce onesself from the project, and it should be treated with the seriousness it demands. That includes ramifications; if your account no longer exists on wikipedia, neither do the bits associated with it. If you have any intention of returning, don't vanish—retire instead. -- Avi (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  If a vanished user comes back and wants the bit back, no big deal. I'm sorry, but I don't see it as being a major issue to reappear. There are reasons a person might vanish and then later reconsider an reappear. Legit concerns about linking their wikipedia account to real life and then realizing it's not necessary. The question is why did they vanish in the first place? Was it because they were under heavy scrutiny and thus fled before the cloud? Or was there an attempted divorce that failed and the user realizes that they want to be involved with WP again? Sorry, I just think the proposal is too "one size fits all".---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  To respond to your points, if there was fleeing due to potential scrutiny or sanctions, the bit is not returned regardless—even accepting that the return is a resuscitation of an existing account, not one which vanished. If there was an attempted divorce, then vanishing isn't necessary—simply retire. Vanishing means "please sever all ties I have with this project", "I can no longer edit here; please cancel my account, kill it with fire, and spread the ashes over the internet so that there is as little way as possible for people to link my real life id with my Wikipedia account." That is one step beyond. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Again, this solution is to simplistic. Hypothetical scenario: User:X is an admin in good standing. Straight laced moral character with the highest degree of integrity. He gets drawn into editing articles on pornography and child abuse, not because those are subjects of interest, but rather because they need somebody to monitor to ensure the highest quality on Wikipedia. User:X decides to retire, but he's a little concerned that the edits to those subjects might come back to haunt him down the road. Perhaps he's looking for a job or just met Mrs Right. So, out of fear that his editing this controversial subjects might come back to bite him, he decides to vanish. He has no intention of returning. Fast forward 6 months, he's got a job and is now married, but misses his involvement in Wikipedia. He regrets his decision to leave and wants to come back. Are we going to demand an RfA from him? Great editor who made a mistake in choosing to vanish rather than retire---but made that choice based upon real life concerns rather than anything related to wikipedia? Would he want to run knowing that since he edited those two controversial areas people are going to label him and oppose simply because he worked in a controversial section which needs good editors?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think I may have addressed that in my suggestion on the VPp; I think that if someone regrets the vanishing, and is willing to be renamed back to the original name (or at least make a very clear linkage between them), they can petition ArbCom to get "reinstated" as it were. The two main issues I see here is 1) Vanishing is more than retiring, and needs to be treated as such 2) The project members have a right to know who has privileges and why. So in this case, the latter could be addressed by making an open linkage. I'd prefer to see the former addressed by not making it automatic. If he is unwilling to link to the old account, we now create a situation where someone would have the bits and no reason or backing for them. That goes against every understanding I have of what this project wants. -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment an interesting proposal and I see merit in both sides of the discussion. It worries me that this page isn't very high profile and the discussion could do with some marketing. WP:CENT anyone? --Dweller (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that there are those focused only on RTV which happens after an editor has edited in a way which the community has frowned upon. I think RTV is a broader idea and includes quite a bit more, including retirement. It seems to me that it is any "leaving" of editing of a Wikipedia account. - jc37 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, Jc37, the above understanding is not how the project guidelines view RtV on English WIkipedia. Please read WP:RTV, where the differentiation between Wikipedia:Retiring and vanishing is made clear. If you wish to have them combined, you would need to show community consensus for merging the two processes. -- Avi (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I realise that some well-meaning editors have narrowed the definition here. But I would be surprised if that narrowing was not just several WP:BOLD edits rather than a widespread consensus. And just because we as a community tend to script rules, policies, and guidelines based upon negative action, and often leave the positive uses to atrophy (or at least left unsaid/unscripted), doesn't mean that the positive uses shouldn't exist or shouldn't be allowable. But regardless, as in any discussion on Wikipedia, I'm merely expressing my thoughts and perspective : )

  As a semi-related aside, please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RTV_vs._Clean_slate - jc37 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sure enough. It would appear that the "what RTV is not" section was a BOLD addition in a "reworking" of the page. [21]. (Here's what the talk page looked like at the time of the change [22].) Nothing wrong with being BOLD (I strongly support BRD). But I think we're hard pressed to call this interpretation a "greater consensus" of the English Wikipedia community. All it does it cause WP:IAR to be invoked when necessary. Wouldn't it be better of the page accounted for the IAR situations if possible? I would think so. - jc37 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, I think it was less of a BOLD change, and more of a bringing the page in line to how bureaucrats had been acting for pretty much years. I doubt anyone other than bureaucrats gave this much thought since this is something that we are tasked to do. -- Avi (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  "'...more of a bring the page into line with how bureaucrats had been acting for pretty much years" Really? I'm not sure that's the case and I was probably the most active bureaucrat at the time. Besides, bureaucrats are expected to act in a way that reflects consensus - our actions do not define it. I'm not aware that anyone has had the return of user rights refused because they had exercised their RTV. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new idea. Absent a strong consensus that bureaucrats should not have a discretion as to whether to return rights to those who have exercised their RTV, I am prepared to restore rights to such a user provided they did not resign their tools under a cloud / in controversial circumstances. WJBscribe (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Didn't that happen to Secret/Jaranda at one point? Part of the muddle of precedent here is separating RTV under tranquil circumstances from those which attracted more controversy. Nathan ^T 22:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Will, This has pretty much been my understanding even prior to my being a bureaucrat. As we are two different people, it is understandable that we have two different interpretations of WP:RTV, which is why having this discussion is a good thing. Being that much is currently left to 'crat discretion, I can easily see a case where I would not return a bit and you would. If that is an untenable situation, we probably need an RfC to determine how the project views RtV vs. retirement etc. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  In regards to your aside, I think that ASCIIn2Bme and The Hand have addressed the issue. One can cleanstart now with no fuss. Abandon the account and start a new one. It may be advisable to let ArbCom or the functionaries know early on, so that they recognize it isn't a sockpuppet but a new account. However, if someone has suspicions of connection to the abandoned account early on, the start, in hindsight, wasn't so clean, was it ? A step beyond abandonment is taken when vanishing is asked for; pages may be deleted, log entries may (not always, not even often, but may) be deleted, that is more severe. My opinion is that an editor needs to think long and hard before trying to officially obfuscate and destroy links to their work in the project, and their needs to be consequences to requesting such a severe severance. -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If we say that sanctions apply to the editor and not the account, why should user rights be any different? The community has placed its trust in an administrator; RTV alone should not revoke that trust. Bureaucrats are already given the discretion to judge the circumstances of an administrators' departure upon their return, and there seems to be no compelling reason to remove that discretion as a blanket policy against RTV. Let's not conflate RTV and clean start - you can "vanish" for many reasons, and choosing that option should not rigidly imply misconduct or controversial circumstances.

I might even venture to say that the community would prefer the continuity that comes from a person resuming their previously vanished account, rather than establishing a new one. The Fae situation, among others in Wikipedia's history, fairly conclusively demonstrates the dismay the community feels when rights are sought on a new account while prior accounts are concealed. Nathan ^T 22:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In theory, Nathan, I agree with you. Once a person demonstrates that they have the project's trust, they keep it until proven otherwise. However, that requires that there is a link between editor and the point at which they can demonstrate they earned that trust. When it comes to RtV, my understanding has always been that it is not a request to retire, but a request to leave the community and have nothing anymore to do with it. That means any bits as well. If a person regrets vanishing and wished to return, I fully agree that they should have some link to the former account (please see Wikipedia:VPP#Alternate alternate_proposal: RTV users are blocked where I spell out my understanding of RtV more fully). That does not mean we conversely immediately grant rights on return in my opinion. The linkage to the dead-and-buried name is for the community's benefit, for continuity of history, at least that is how I see it at this point. As I told Will above, perhaps we need a wider discussion on this so that we can have a clear consensus on how 'crats should respond. -- Avi (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing that I think we're all tripping over is the "labels" of a group of actions that bureaucrats need to take to do X.

Put more simply. why is X called retirement and Y called RTV, and in what ways are they separate, in what ways are they similar, is part of one a subset of the other, etc.

Maybe figure out some "steps" to this.

For example: Boo means individual leaving never to return - and all sorts of things are wiped. Bar is just like Boo, except that the individual is leaving the account, but still plans to edit under another account or as an IP, or at the very least is "allowed" to return to edit in the future under another account or as an IP - the two edit histories (old and new) will not be noted/connected onsite or in a technical way with each other. Bam is just like Bar except that it doesn't include the deletion steps of Boo. Bis merely involves moving the history of one account to another account name, clearing/freeing the old account for use/usurption/whatever.

And of course none of this deals with whether a returning individual's edits may fail the DUCK test for a previously left user. That's the individual's problem based upon their choice of editing habits, not our problem.

And of course we should have guidelines whether an individual who has done something the community frowns upon (or if it seems they may be doing this to avoid sanction) should be allowed which of these various things, if any.

All of this said, I think that we're fooling ourselves if we think that we can make a policy for someone to never return. Though I will say, we continue to try... - jc37 01:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (am I allowed even though I'm not a crat?) .. pending a wider scale RfC. I could be persuaded to support given certain stipulations. The primary one is that it is a "moving forward" change, and not retroactive. Policies change over time, and sometimes quite quickly. It's very easy to make a mistake if you've been away for a while. — Ched :  ?  14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's an open discussion; your thoughts are as welcome and as appreciated as anyone's, Ched . -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The "Right to vanish" policy has never had broad consensus. It was originally a paraphrase of MeatBall:RightToVanish, and turned into something else entirely quite at odds with the original sentiment. It had the support of a few admins, who helped a few people vanish. I don't believe the policy is in the project's best interest. Wikipedians have a legitimate interest in seeing the history remain intact and have attribution remain consistent. The few "vanishings" that have seemed appropriate to me have involved naive users who had absolutely no idea what they were getting into. People who make the biggest fuss when they leave are among the most likely to return. I suspect that few "vanished users" have stayed away from the project entirely. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)