Is there some procedure for the bots of retired users? I heard bots need an operator, and this doesn't seems to met with a retired operator. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 03:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be covered by something over on Wikipedia:Bot policy. If it's not there, it should be. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If a user has left Wikipedia, their bots should not be operating. This happens occasionally (sometimes it takes awhile to be noticed), and is generally dealt with at WP:BOWN. This way we can normally find a new operator for the bot, and then block it. --Chris 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What Chris said, with the addition that sometimes bot ops prefer to be really really inactive (X! for the last year) and as long as they keep up the code, we don't care. MBisanz ^talk 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To add onto that, keep up the code and respond in a timely manner to any questions or concerns about the bot, which I think is covered in the bot policy as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Kumi-Taskbot, all approvals for Kumi-Taskbot (talk · contribs) have been revoked by the Bot Approvals Group. Could a bureaucrat outside the group please confirm and implement the consensus of this discussion, removing Kumi-Taskbot's bot flag? Thank you, — madman 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No need, I concur and have further requested that access to AWB for me and the bot be removed per the communities apparent desires. If I feel like editing again in the future and access is needed I will rerequest it again. That way I can be reminded of how the zero defect mentality of the community has no tolerence for mistakes and editors trying to make improvements to the project and the request can be denied appropriately. As another editor recently called me, DIVA out! --Kumioko (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems axiomatic to me that a bot with no approvals should not have a bot flag, so administrators can clearly tell the difference between authorized and unauthorized bots, and that the flag would be regained upon any subsequent task's approval, but I can also see how removing the bot flag might be seen as punitive. So it's up to whatever bureaucrat wants to review the matter (if any). :x — madman 23:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the bot flag. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (no sarcasm intended). --Kumioko (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there - I'd greatly appreciate my desysopping. While I maintain the propriety of every administrative action I have ever taken on Wikipedia (although I'll own up to a bit of incivility in my non-admin capacity!), I think it is time for me to hand in the tools and, to avoid any future disputes, self-declare that I'm doing so under a cloud. If anyone is wondering why, I just don't think the benefit the project and me get from me having the tools (which is pretty limited as I hardly use them any more) justifies the drama that I fear I'm about to be put through. Thank you. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I reinstated the rights you had prior to becoming an admin (reviewer, rollbacker, and autopatrolled). If you want those removed as well, just ask. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside, while I didn't investigate too deeply, I did notice your page literally seconds before it was deleted yesterday. (I started to look into the allegations and when I went back to the page, it was gone.) That being said, from what I saw, you had little to no fear of having your bit removed. Of course, somebody who has the name Balloonman sees absolutely nothing wrong with calling somebody the class clown ;-) I do, unfortunately, agree that since you are stepping down after somebody said they would initiate a recall process, that this is under a cloud.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing or supporting the under a cloud bit. There was a question of , what are your recall conditions from one user and I added my future vote if ever there was an admin action that warranted recall with my previous issues with the user, I would probably be one of the voters - but all of that is just speculation - the user has not done anything to warrant recall as I can see and he can't just declare it as under cloud himself when he may of been upset. I have only one current issue with him, and that is in relation to a non admin civility issue which is waiting at first base for a resolution if or when he returns. Its up to the crats to decide if it was under a cloud or not and I would have no objection if they were to reject his under a cloud comment. Youreallycan 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He has not requested the bit back nor has he invoked RTV, so this is entirely academic unless he requests the bit back at a later date. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is academic at a later date, but having the current thoughts on the subject will help refresh our understanding down the road should he ask for them back or undergo another RfA. I do put a lot of weight into YRC's statement above that he doesn't feel that this is leaving under a cloud, because my statement above was based upon a discussion I saw between the two of them. If YRC doesn't consider it under a cloud, I'm willing ot defer to him as he was more involved with the discussion that lead to this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The only cloud I saw was a Mare's Tail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've been on a data validation kick lately, so I looked at uses of Template:Administrator topicon in the User and User talk namespaces where the user isn't actually an admin. I made a list here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=479765770>. I also included the script, in case someone wants to learn something. Some of these cases are edge cases (alt accounts of admins), but most are just wrong.

Why am I posting this here? Well, most of this mess was made by bureaucrats removing adminship due to user inactivity. I guess the inactive former admins are expected to come back to update their user and user talk pages themselves? Dunno. It'd be nice if someone could go through the list and remove the little icon where it doesn't belong. And maybe check the user and user talk pages for "I'm an admin" text and remove it as appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the topicon from 19 user pages, left the ones who belong to former sysops alone, the updated list is here. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated lists here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480073988
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480074732

--MZMcBride (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I was desysopped back in November for being active for a little over a year. I'm planning on being around for a bit with some free time so would find use in the admin rights being restored. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Woot! Tiptoety ^talk 06:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've retires, User:MPUploadBot and User:EyeEightDestroyerBot can both be desysopped. If I wasn't decratted, I could have done it. But meh... (X! · talk)  · @889  ·  20:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Maxim_(talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I know we're all busy volunteers, but I was wondering if I could get a few more crat or clerk eyes at WP:CHUS. I've been doing about 85% of the recent renames and don't mind, but sometimes I will ignore requests that seem iffy to me, hoping someone else will deal with them. Someone else dealing with them or at least commenting on them would be appreciated. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to swing by more often. Should the community be thinking about appointing a new bureaucrat? WJBscribe (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not making any promises, but I will try to get back to my Wikipedian roots. Some major things came up, doing serious damage to my attempted unretirement, but I think it's mostly straightened out, and I still have some things on my Wikipedia to-do list that I want to get to. That is not to say the community shouldn't be thinking about appointing a new bureaucrat, as I have no idea at this point (except I saw that X! unfortunately retired); I am mostly commenting as a means of self-motivation. Useight (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Or just abolish the entire rename process :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to help clerk WP:CHU and deal with malformed or inappropriate requests. (I'm not a bureaucrat and thus cannot rename users, but I am familiar with WP:UP.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I check my watchlist periodically. I work 9-6 Mon-Fri and in my free time I have my own backlogs of chores, work, and optional projects, so Wiki editing, CHU and such haven't made it onto the queue recently. Andrevan@ 01:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick up some of the slack. Maximr 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been a bit sick the last while, and also really busy at work, which has limited my time here. I'll try to pick up more like I used to do. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to file a WP:CHU yet, since I'm not sure if it's appropriate, and there's absolutely no activity on the talk page, so I expect this is a better place to ask a question. There's currently a thread at WP:VPR regarding the new automatic edit summary produced when a page is moved, and someone has asked what happens if the username is later changed. Would it be reasonable for me to request a temporary name change for my alternate account to see what happens? If so, I'd be requesting a second change (back to the original), and that's why I'm unsure of whether it would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean, the summaries are not going to change due to subsequent actions. If you want, we can test it on test.wikipedia.org, but I'm pretty sure that no, won't change at all. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessary. Andrevan@ 01:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My wife downloaded some spyware to my computer and I don't have time to clean it (we're leaving for a road trip in about 10 minutes) and if I change my pass there is just as much chance that my password will be picked up by the spy ware. Therefore, I request a temporary desysop until I clean my computer and also if anyone sees any suspicious activity from either my account or User:TPBot, just block us both until I can sort it out.--v/r - TP 18:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to lock the account temporarily? (aka prevent all logins) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that we'll have no way to verify it's actually you to unblock it or re-sysop it, right? :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any way to verify if TParis would have control over the account, since the malware could easily infect the computer with a backdoor, rendering checkuser ineffective in determining who requested resysopping. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems fairly unlikely to me that anyone would use spyware for the purpose of usurping a wikipedia admin account. Much less so that they would request re-sysopping in his name. If they do we would of course find out when the real TParis contacts us to tell us so and we would be able to determine in that very unlikely case how to discern between the real McCoy and the impostor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It seem fairly obvious to me that nobody can know for what specific purpose, if any, someone would choose to install spyware. I'm concerned though about TParis's toolserver account. Might that also have been compromised? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the reason the Toolserver doesn't use passwords. It's much harder to compromise a private key than a password. — madman 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Much harder" isn't very reassuring. How much harder? Impossible? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c, and it turns out I'm just parrotting Maunus) Meh. We can take his word for it, and if he starts acting weird we can panic then. If nothing else, he's likely to have emailed someone before. I hate to break it to everyone, but people outside Wikipedia don't consider having a Wikipedia admin account worth much; malware programs are after things slightly more valuable than the ability to block people from editing and see deleted pron. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While it is highly unlikely that the spyware was specifically targeted at obtaining unauthorized access to Wikipedia accounts, many spyware programs just save the username, the password, and the URL whenever a password control appears on a webpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But it is not a problem untill that happens. Temporary desysopping is more than enough of a safeguard.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody else notice that he has a committed identity right at the top of his userpage? That's how we verify it's him who has control, in the unlikely situation it's necessary--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well you just take the fun out of everything, don't you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • How very rude, I take offence to that--The Fun ^Police ;) 21:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• What part of "I request a temporary desysop", T Paris - is difficult to understand? Youreallycan 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • None of the people who have replied are bureaucrats and thus cannot temporarily desysop TParis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Which raises the question, what are we all doing here? And a quibble: Snowolf could desysop TParis, he'd just get screamed at afterwards for violating enwiki sovereignty. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the original request, the User:TParis account has been de-sysoped. For transparency, this is most definitely not under a cloud, it is simply to fulfil a genuine request as a pre-emptive preventative measure. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn you for beating me to it. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

First time for everything...! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to take a moment to remind all the stewards wandering around that under the GRU, they have always been, and remain, allowed to remove sysop rights in both emergency and non-emergency situations. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the access. I'll explain real quick: My wife and I were expecting a 5 hour road trip with our two children. She wanted to download Disney movies for the drive that we could put on my tablet and she ended up installing software that included a ton of spyware. I uninstalled all of the software, but I didnt have a chance to run a virus scan. I'm actually on vacation all weekend so I'm going to run the scan now, but I'm going to wait until I get home to request the tools back. Last time I had spyware on my computer, random links started showing up on websites I was registered on under my account and on websites I maintained. That's why I requested desysop. I was concerned a spambot might use my account to spam and would bypass the spam filters. My toolserver account should not be in danger because it uses a certificate to connect and I havent connected to toolserver since the software was installed. Anyway, we'll see ya'all on Sunday.--v/r - TP 04:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Resysop

I know I said I'd wait until Sunday, but I uninstalled all of the software (8 programs installed with the one thing she downloaded) and the virus scan last night came back clean. I've changed my password and I believe my account is secure. If anyone feels the need to verify my committed identity, feel free to email me first but I'd like to go ahead and get the bit back.--v/r - TP 16:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, welcome back and thanks for your diligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd rather start a small ^^ discussion on extra-caution than a controversy on lack of responsibility after getting my account hacked.--v/r - TP 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears an administrator has died, see WP:AN#Steven Rubenstein. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrator review/MBisanz 2 to help me become a better editor and crat. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a closure of an RfA that is 50 minutes overdue. Someone please close it or I will.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,765,698) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup ... remember, RFA's and AFD's typically last "at least" 7 days ... not 7 days to the minute. They can run longer, if active (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz has closed the RfA. You can now relax. Maxim_(talk) 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've closed it. But there was no need to worry over it being 50 minutes late and I would counsel against non-crats closing completed RFAs such as this, especially when they are not expired by a significant amount of time. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh. Oops. It's in my nature that everything is executed in a timely manner. As you can see, it can sometimes be a little bit disruptive.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,792,624) 20:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have my administrative rights removed. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I read your userpage and hope you do reconsider down the road; the tools will be waiting here for you to reclaim them at your leisure. Thank you again for your service to the project. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to change my user name frome espiral0 to espiral --Espiral0 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The proper place is WP:CHU, not here. --Rschen7754 19:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a notification that a request as been filed on meta for a rename by blocked user User:Mbz1, specifically for this wiki. The request has been declined as no steward action can be done, but figured it might be worth notifying the 'crats here so that if you want, you can properly reply to the user. The request is on m:Steward_requests/Username_changes#Mbz1.40Global. Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the instructions telling him to contact ArbCom are good. Any changes related to this account should go through them, first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what Arbcom says to him personally, I generally operate under the practice that I will rename a blocked user to a name like VanishedUserXXX if they agree to leave the project forever and agree that if we catch them socking, I will undo the rename. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I call for my fellow crats help in weighing the equities and deciding if 158 edits is too many to usurp an account at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Markvs88_.E2.86.92_Markvs. MBisanz ^talk 15:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If the request was with a view to unifying a global account, it might need careful thought. But as it's just to give effect to a user's choice of name, I don't think our policy allows this rename - the target has made many non-trivial good faith edits. WJBscribe (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WJScribe. The target has made many non-trivial edits. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a 'crat, but kibitzing anyway. I note that it would be a dubious precedent to set to suggest that one can get one's preferred, already-taken username just by making more edits than the name's original owner. It's like not getting the Gmail (or Hotmail, back in the day) address you wanted; just move on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that this probably isn't going to change anyone's minds, but here's something to consider: this account hasn't been used in eight years. The phone company reuses telephone numbers all the time, and don't get me started about how many John Smiths there are in the world. IMO if one can never usurp an old name, Wikipedia is going to look like AOL in a few years when everyone has to use a number at the end of their name because every name has been taken. Maybe WJBscribe200 and Nihonjoe37 will agree with me some far off day. I'm assuming my request is dead though. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a phone company, and if you've ever had the previous number of a popular person, you probably will concur that we'd be much better off with them not recycling them. To my mind, it doesn't matter how long ago the account was used. It has a significant number of edits, would you argue that if I were to retire now, in 5 years somebody would have a right to take over my name? I hope not, when a contributor leaves, he leaves behind his contributions, for which we should be grateful for, they become part of this encyclopedia, this project that belongs to all of us. I fail to see how helping, then moving on with one's life is grounds for penalizing them by forcibly renaming them. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Snowolf1, I understand your concerns...and to which I counter, how many of those 158 edits from 8 years ago are still intact? Of course, there is no real way to figure that out except by hand, and I really don't care to do so unless it would make a difference here. It's also a good thing that there aren't any need for disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, since there isn't anyone in the world with the same name. Nope, once someone has a name, they're unique forever in history. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Snarkiness isn't going to get you anywhere, nor will it further your cause here. The policies and guidelines exist for a reason; if you don't like them, you are welcome to start discussions to try to change them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe1. Further what cause? My request was closed before it was even discussed here! And if this isn't the proper place to discuss this, then where is? The pump? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I imagine your cause is trying to get us to go against longstanding practice. That's what you're asking to be done. As for the proper place to discuss something, it really depends on which policy or guideline you are talking about. Generally, you discuss them on their individual pages. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe37: Wow, that cleared a lot up, thanks! I should just keep talking here then? I see how that's going to change "longstanding practices", as no one's actually willing to even discuss the case *because* of the aforementioned longstanding practice. Don't worry, I'm not going to bother coming back, there's no point in talking to walls. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have cared nearly so much had the request been discussed a bit before just being dismissed. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that what Nihonjoe is saying is that the proper place to discuss the changing username guidelines is Wikipedia talk:Changing username, not the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. — madman 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators doesn't seem to have been updated for February. --Rschen7754 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I find myself with far less time for Wikipedia than I have in the past. Someone else will have to pick up the inactive administrators task. –xeno^talk 14:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I think this could be handled by a bot. Everything up to the actual desysopping, of course. Identifying the users, leaving a message, and sending an e-mail are all easy. — madman 15:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a great idea. If the bot can also keep the page updated, that'd be optimal. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why that page needs to be maintained by a Crat. You only need a Crat for the actual desysopping. Plenty of people were strongly in favour of creating the system - I'd guess one of them could be rustled up by a note at AN. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There were concerns expressed that a bureaucrat should handle the process to ensure the emails were being properly sent as there is no way to verify this. There was an offer by a bureaucrat to operate a bot, but I think they don't have time for this now. I think that it is fine if the bot is operated by a trusted user. There is discussion in the archives as to how it should operate. –xeno^talk 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point; the only way I could think of to verify the e-mail was being sent correctly would be to have it change the target to me immediately before calling action=emailuser during the trial; I could also set ccme while it's live. — madman 16:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the only issue is making sure the bureaucrat removing the permissions can confirm that emails were sent in accordance with the policy. Could the bot cc the bureaucrat mailing list? That would be an efficient way to record that emailed notifications were properly sent. WJBscribe (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately when sending e-mail through MediaWiki, you can only Cc: the sender, and of course we can't send e-mail outside of MediaWiki as we don't know the admins' e-mail addresses. I could have the bot automatically post the copies of the e-mails it receives to the Web. (Or to the bureaucrat mailing list, now that I think of it.) — madman 17:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be a stupid idea, but would it not be possible to add the address of the crat mailing list as the bot's email address? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. That would work in theory, and trout me for not thinking of it. But if someone e-mails the bot through MediaWiki, I'd probably want it to go to me (or if I need a password reset e-mail, etc.). That said, it's possible if the bureaucrats would feel more comfortable knowing that the copy of the e-mail they're getting is coming directly from MediaWiki (maybe we would set up a separate bot account). — madman 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One alternative might be for the bot to generate a report that includes an "E-mail notice" link for each inactive admin. Someone would then click that link, where the emailuser interface would have a standard preloaded subject and message body. the box to receive a copy in your e-mail would also be ticked. All that remains would be for you to click send - two clicks total per notice, with a report that lists the names and an e-mail for each to confirm that notice was sent. I know we can preload templates, and that some special pages can take input from the referring page (as with the Delete interface reading deletion reasons from a CSD or AFD template), but am unsure if the emailuser function can do the same. Might be a time saver, and would skirt the whole verification issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, target is the only valid parameter for Special:EmailUser. — madman 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there a discussion about a bot for that already a way back? I'm pretty sure we had this discussion before...yep, here it is. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, it looks like last time we discussed this, consensus was to get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat wield the actual axe. This time around, consensus so far seems to be to get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat weild the actual axe. I have a suggestion, why don't we get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat wield the actual axe? --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Echo... echo... echo.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dweller has me thinking; I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but wouldn't it be great to have a bot to do the legwork, but have a human 'crat wield the axe? -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds wrong...how about instead we let a bot do the legwork and a human 'crat wields the axe? ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

hacks off Dweller's head with an axe for displaying excessive rationality. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[stumbles around, tripping over things] --Dweller (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest this is not the way to get ahead a head in life. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame he wasn't more headstrong. — madman 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, step one: See if this report looks right. User:Madman/Inactive admins — madman 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, but what do I know :D -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As it's nearing the end of the month, I suggest we group those who would have been eligible for removal in February (had they been notified) with those for March, and notify both groups at the same time at the start of next month. WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated the report accordingly (and copied it to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators so it can be worked on while I continue to play in my sandbox). — madman 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say 1st of March and not 1st of April? I could easily be mistaken, but all the previous request seem to work that way. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Yes. This would be the report generated on March 1st for APRIL. Herp derp. I'll generate a report as of February 1st for March. — madman 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC) I have a triple espresso now and the report is correct (these two facts are related). — madman 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Step two: The bot has sent an example e-mail using the e-mail template to Madman (talk · contribs); it received a copy of the message and should have automatically forwarded it, with all headers intact, to wikien-bureaucrats so bureaucrats can confirm it was indeed sent. Can someone on that list confirm this? Cheers! — madman 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Confirmed by Hersfold — madman 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the previous discussion, I'm also going to set it up so any replies to the e-mail will automatically be forwarded to wikien-bureaucrats as well (unfortunately, there's no way to set a Reply-To header on the e-mail sent by MediaWiki, and as always the bot can't send an e-mail directly). — madman 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Madman, in the future, when you send an example e-mail, can you add a disclaimer in the Subject and in the beginning stating it is a test email for review purposes and not binding. Receiving an email titled "Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity" with the official email enclosed was a bit confusing. Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Nice work!

Sure thing; sorry about that. — madman 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just checking in on this; is there consensus to trial a bot, perhaps on February 1st for March 1st? I can file a BRFA anytime, but in my opinion, due to the nature of the task, only consensus here can approve a trial. — madman 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead with the BRFA. I think it's clear we all really really support giving work to other people :) MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But only the legwork as a 'crat still should wield the axe :-P -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what?! I totally didn't get that sense from the discussion above; I'll have to change the whole thing. → Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 13 — madman 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot has been approved for trial; one of the conditions was that the notifications' language make it clear they're being sent by a bot and indicate where to report errors. Do the following changes to the boilerplates look all right? — madman 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes look fine. MBisanz ^talk 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Updates: The report ran successfully, though it ran under my non-bot account first, so I reverted and ran it again. All last edit values are correct, but for some reason some last log values are not. I went through all administrators' logs and confirmed they still met the inactive administrator criteria. Notification then ran successfully; all talk page messages were delivered and all e-mails were sent. The bot reported it hadn't sent any e-mails when it updated the report because it was looking for the incorrect result value for success; I updated the report manually with e-mails I'd gotten a copy of, either from MediaWiki or from the forwarding script; I can confirm the seven remaining users definitely do not have e-mail set, as I was watching the results from the API. The forwarding script should have been forwarding the MediaWiki messages to both me and wikien-bureaucrats; however, I only got a copy of one or the other. I suspect either Sendmail on the Toolserver being wonky or my .forward file being incorrect (I suspect the latter; I meant for it to deliver to both my normal e-mail address and the script but I suspect if was delivered to my normal e-mail address before the script was called it didn't bother with the script.) I'm hoping wikien-bureaucrats got all 28 forwards but if not, I can forward the 17 that they would have not received. This definitely will be fixed by the next round of notifications, and having confirmed that I believe next month this can be run fully automatically. Cheers, — madman 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The second batch of notifications has been sent out by the bot; all talk page messages and e-mail messages were sent successfully. The only bobbles were while updating the report, due to a typo, the diff link didn't include the revid (fixed), and I only came up with the clever idea of linking to a copy of the e-mail after all was said and done (hindsight is 20/20). All input on this trial is welcome, here and at the BRFA! — madman 00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Again hindsight is 20/20, but a second check for inactivity should have been done before sending out the second batch of notifications in case some administrators were prompted by the first notification to become active again. Most were not (only responding to the notification on their user talk page), but those who were should not have been bothered a second time. My apologies. I'll update the code to do a second check for inactivity and remove administrators who are active again (either there's a recent log entry or edit to something other than user talk page). Update: Looks like this only affected Veinor; I removed the talk page notice. — madman 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Any further comments from bureaucrats? Are the e-mails accessible enough, is the operation of the bot acceptable given the notes above? Cheers, — madman 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very satisfied with it. MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the bot has been very successful - thank you. WJBscribe (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with the inactivity policy, I have removed admin rights from 22 accounts today. WJBscribe (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm back after a long absence and would like to kindly request the return of my admin tools. My account hasn't been compromised in the interim, if that helps. If there's anything else I need to do before I'm allowed a mop and bucket again, please do let me know. Thanks so much! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back! MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! Now I'll get to work. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mabdul has gone on past its scheduled close. At scheduled close it was 75%. Currently it's at 70%. Wait a bit longer and I'll be able to close it myself. Josh Parris 13:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Josh Parris, the closing times are merely the minimum duration an RfA should run for, rather than an absolute point for them to be closed. In this candidacy, people are still commenting and changing their opinions, and I suspect the bureaucrats have left it open for this reason (someone correct me if I'm wrong!). In addition, the only people who should close a non-snow RfA such as this one are bureaucrats...it would be inappropriate for you or I to close it. Best. (For transparency, I opposed the RfA.) Acalamari 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh - this didn't save... Although this is not at least 12 hours, do you take in account the changes to the RFA after the scheduled end time? The Helpful One 13:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course all changes are taken into account - 7 days is a minimum. If consensus is still changing and discussion is occurring, there's no need to close (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming, typo fixed :) The Helpful One 14:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I checked... in my head. I got the maths wrong. I should have asked Google. Josh Parris 13:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've closed it as unsuccessful. I didn't leave it open for any specific reason. I happened to be sleeping and don't know the motivations of the other crats. Seven days is the minimum and subsequent comments prior to close are taken into account. I recognize that this appears to have resulted in changing the outcome, but that is of course the risk the community takes by having a "7+ rule" instead of a "7 limit" rule. MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, 7 days is just a minimum - though we tend to close promptly (or formally extend the period) if around. For my part, I was available to close the RfA this morning but did not do so as I had participated. I suspect the delay resulted mainly from the two English bureaucrats who are currently most active in this area (WilliamH and me) being conflicted. WJBscribe (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asleep, and then had some other things which had to be done this morning before work. Then there was work, which I only recently got back from. So, that's why I didn't close it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a crat chat was needed in this discussion, as opposing for an April Fools joke when I counted about 50 different editors participating in this unfunny nonsense and I haven't seen all the jokes yet, plus some of the anti IRC clientele participating in that discussion which votes should discounted. If April Fools wasn't so abused by the community this year, and it been limited like years past I'm sure Mabdul wouldn't have been opposed for it. I'm baffled by the close. Note I haven't really been using IRC much lately, only for if I need to get an hold of an admin emergency, and I have limited interactions with Mabdul there, so I'm not an IRC buddy trying to defend it, just disgusted that it was a vote rationale. Secret ^account 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I had the same kind of reaction. While I initially opposed the candidate, the amount of nonsense in the oppose section simply disgusted me beyond belief. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was no worse than the nonsense in the support section. Malleus Fatuorum 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be disgusted by that vote rationale, however, it is not a prohibited or nonsensical rationale (nonsensical rationales would be "candidate is a woman" or "candidate speaks English"). It's merely a controversial rationale (like 1FA, children, etc). The fact it was voiced by several users is evidence that it is not nonsensical because it is not a view held by an extreme minority of participants. What part of the close specifically baffles you, as I could find no grounds for disregarding a valid vote rationale such as that? MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How is "Candidate uses IRC" any more rational that "Candidate users email" as oppose reason... It's baffling. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the community believes that administrators' use of communication tools is a criteria on which to judge them. It's baffling, but it's a problem to take up with the community instead of the crats. MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly understand how this RfA could have been closed in either direction. Perhaps the "baffling" part is this: A crat is tasked with evaluating all views and establishing consensus. In this case it appears that the close goes beyond the individual task at hand (the RfA), but also informally is stating what a "consensus" is in regards to not only a "one day per year 'joke' April 1 event", but also whether or not IRC is an acceptable medium of communication. When you (MBisanz) say that "the community believes that administrators' use of communication tools is a criteria on which to judge them", you (in my view) seem to be establishing a consensus for such a criteria. I posit that it may be a "criteria" for some editors, but I hardly think it is for all editors. Yes, I do realize that you don't go so far as to say that IRC is unacceptable; but, I think you're getting dangerously close to that in the way you're wording both the close and your responses. Please note that I am not finding fault with the close - I think it is quite valid. I'm just suggesting that the wording is dangerously close to setting precedent for future candidates who may use IRC. — Ched :  ?  06:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The close on the RFA page didn't come close to implying this. It stated plainly ".....specifically those concerns related to IRC canvassing...". Leaky Caldron 13:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, first I'll say that I've followed Matt's accomplishments for years now (a TRULY impressive young man), and I wasn't trying to find fault with the close itself. Second, perhaps it's more a matter of my inferring a stance on IRC than him implying such. Third, I honestly have very mixed feelings wrt IRC. I think it can be a valuable tool, but I also think it gets misused all to often as well. If you're open to it, I'd be more than happy to continue a discussion on your talk - but I don't want to barge in if you're not open to a chat. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I've used IRC extensively for over three years. Second, I didn't mean to imply that use of IRC (or any means of communication) is unacceptable. What I meant was that some non-fringe minority of users at the RFA expressed concerns to Mabdul's use of IRC, specifically as it related to canvassing. You're right that the close of an RFA is a specific application of a general rule. The general rule is that if consensus to promote is not shown, a user will not pass RFA. In this case, three minority groups with valid viewpoints (IRC, April 1, and article editing) overlapped to create a lack of consensus (note the phrase lack of consensus, they did not create a new consensus with their opposition). I wasn't implying that there was now a consensus that IRC was bad, merely that a group of people found this candidate's use of IRC to be an indicator that he was not qualified at this time.

Also, since a lot of people have asked about this close, I'll take the opportunity to put my foot in my mouth. My philosophy on RFA remains what it was in 2009 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/MBisanz#Questions_for_the_candidate. That is, I'm strongly driven by the numbers, as indicated from prior community consensus. Also, in the RFA-arena, I have a very narrow view of bureaucrat discretion (it exists between 73%-75% after removing plainly erroneous comments). People have said crats should be more holistic in weighing the comments to mitigate the effects of poorly based opposes. I would agree that personally I do not see the use of IRC as problematic. But, just as I could see people opposing a candidate for merely being a user of 4chan, it is not plainly erroneous that a person would oppose a user of IRC out of concern that they are more suspectable to cabaling in private. If you want crats to actually discount poorly thought out but not plainly erroneous comments, then tell us that. Make it a presumption to promote unless the opposition shows actual defects in editing. That could then eliminate the balancing test because everyone passes unless someone shows specific evidence of where they were lacking. MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"73-75% after removing plainly erroneous comments?" My understanding was that the zone of discretion was 70-75, and could range further, especially if giving less weight to "weak" votes or if there was a clear trend in the debate. I can't recall a close of no consensus where the percentage was over 80% but had been steadily falling for the previous couple of days, or indeed the reverse, but I would hope that either would be seen as within crat discretion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The range is broader, probably 65-80, but 70-80 is the standard expression. However, 73-75 as discretionary would cover over 99.9% of all possible instances of discretion and I indicated in my RFB that I would be willing but extraordinarily unlikely to use discretion outside that range. I suspect I'm in the minority of crats there though. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, If someone would be so kind I'd like my admin bit turned back on. I seem to have regained an interest in BLP issues again, and I may have a use for the tools. Cheers Kevin (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back, MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MB! Kevin (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Please remove my access to the administrative tools. I'm stepping down for violating their recommended use (specifically, wheel-warring), so they probably shouldn't be returned to me until such time as I've successfully passed another RfA. My apologies to Laser brain and SandyGeorgia. Thanks, Steve ^T • C 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth (Non-administrator comment), I think there was no valid justification for the wheel warring and would suggest — as Steve already has in his request — that this removal would be under a cloud. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth—and for the avoidance of all doubt—I agree. Even though it had a very specific aim (apart from the simple act of unblocking), the reversal wasn't based in policy, guideline, or any other recommended use of the tools. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • As I said at ANI, I think that you had to unblock Malleus was unfortunate—not necessarily incorrect, but it was under unfortunate circumstances—and I think you've done the right thing here to ask for the desysop. We need more admins like you (ironically). Best wishes, —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but having just looked over the situation I have to say it leaves me supremely unconcerned. I really don't see much problem here (and just yesterday I was thinking how stupid it is that nearly every time Malleus gets blocked he's unblocked before the block expires). I can see and understand the arguments on both sides, in this instance, and I can see how they both have merit. Maybe it's just because I seem to have an extra helping of empathy or something, I don't know. Oh well, like I said, checking out the situation leading to this post definitely gives me a "what, is that all?" feeling compared to how serious this post made it sound. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Steve's action, and I think the crats should reject this request for de-sysop as unnecessary. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Whether or not you support Steve's action, it was clearly not wheel-warring by our definition of the term, and I don't see any other factors that would make this desysopping "under a cloud" (involved, etc). Indeed, I would be minded to reject the request outright. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Steve's admin rights in accordance with his request. Although the question of whether or not he relinquished the tools under a cloud / in controversial circumstances is ultimately a matter of discretion for the bureaucrat(s) who consider any future request for their restoration, it is likely that the circumstances of this resignation will be found to necessitate a fresh RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Without prejudice to a future crat's review, I regrettably agree with Will. Even though I highly doubt Steve would have been desysopped for his action, it definitely seems like point two of WP:RESYSOP ("with the effect[] of evading scrutiny of their actions") applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Edited the main page followed by a series of rather strange edits. Needs to be de-admined until we find out what is going on.©Geni 07:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally crats can only act in the situations outlined by WP:B, and this doesn't seem to be one of those situations - I've emailed ArbCom so they can act if they wish. If the admin self-unblocks, and starts causing chaos, the stewards can be contacted, but right now it's not an emergency (it's difficult to unblock oneself). --Rschen7754 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Please compare Wikipedia:CRAT#Removal_of_permissions with Wikipedia:GRU#Stewards. Crats were both unavailable and unable to act in this circumstances, thus Steward intervention would be the only means of resolution. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Geni was sent here by the Stewards, 4 of us (stewards) felt no action on our part was needed, as the user did only one potentially problematic edit and stopped once told to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then even moreso that resolution stands, as the Stewards were the only users who should have been involved in deciding the situation. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, arbcom did it themselves [1] Hot Stop 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User has now been desysopped by stewards following a request on meta from the Arbitration Committee. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Except in very clear emergencies (and we're talking "deleting the main page and blocking everyone in sight" emergencies), bureaucrats don't have the support of the community to act in these cases of their own accord. Stewards, also, will be very unlikely to act at the request of a general community member except in those cases. The Arbitration Committee is solely responsible for carrying out emergency procedures and authorizing one of these people to desysop someone. In this case, the Committee investigated the situation and found that an emergency desysop was needed to prevent disruption to the project, however the on-wiki actions of Centrx did not quite rise to the level needed for action without ArbCom approval. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the Main is not technically doable anymore :) In any case, from a steward perspective, unless the user is either clearly a compromised account (in which case an account lock is the appropriate measure, not a desysop which can be left for arbcom or local 'crats to take care of) or is clearly out of control and not containable by normal administrative instruments (ie the guy's self unblocks or keeps using administrative rights while blocked and causing major distruption that way, etc.), the Stewards are not the proper avenue. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, deleting the Main Page is still perfectly possible. You just have to know how to do it. :p (And if anyone cares, yes, I know how to that. But I'm not planning on sending us back four years). Maxim_(talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please could someone resysop my account. I resigned as an admin back in November 2011 here uncontroversially as I needed a break. It's been almost 5 months and as I plan on contributing once more now, including some admin jobs, so I would like the admin bit back. Davewild (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(I am addressing this to the Bureaucrats since my question covers use of the Rename feature.) As we all know, offensive user names will sometimes spring up, clogging up the logs, and it strikes me that the policy regarding how to deal with these is rather ad hoc at the moment, and so would like some clarification on it. As far as I am aware, we currently have the following tools at our disposal:

1. RD2 log redaction (example i)
2. RD3 redaction (example ii)
3. Oversight
4. Renaming (example iii)
5. Locked (example iv)
6. Locked + Hidden (example v)
7. Locked + Suppressed, which I was told about on IRC – apparently it hides the user from all logs to all except Stewards, without itself leaving logs.

Now, my question is, when is each of these measures supposed to be used? As I say, at the moment it looks to me like the action taken depends on the whims of whoever notices the problem. More specifically, my questions are:

• Firstly, could I clarify what the difference between RD2 and RD3 is, with regard to offensive names? When is an account/page name one, but not the other? If they are interchangeable, perhaps we could reword the criteria to collapse them into one, or to move all offensive titles to one and malicious code etc. to the other?
• Am I correct in thinking that Oversight is never used in cases of offensive account names, or is it sometimes appropriate to request it?

In each of the following cases, which of RevDel, Rename, Lock, etc. is appropriate?

• General profanity, without an obvious target, but genuinely offensive/unpleasant to read: User:@#!
  • Edits on en.wiki only
  • Edits on more than one wiki (and the same question for the rest of the examples)
• Profanity targeted at a Wikipedia user: User:AdminX_is_a_@#!
• Profanity targeted at real-world individuals/groups: User:CelebrityX_is_a_@#! / Fooians_are_@#!s
• Potentially libellous statements targeted at a Wikipedia user: User:AdminX_sells_heroin
• Potentially libellous statements about real-world individuals/groups: User:CelebrityX_sells_heroin

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying that Oversight is simply Suppression, not actually Oversight, so it's just a step further than #1 or #2. I used to do #4, but realized it just created more logs that needed deletion. I think #3 and #7 are the best for libellous things (of either target) and #2 and #6 for simple profanity. MBisanz ^talk 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd still like some more clarification. To take a concrete case, I have now RD3ed all the logs pertaining to example ii—click "(Logs)" next to the date and time of the linked-to log entry. (I realise this account was active a long time ago, but I think it will serve as a good example case.) Would you recomment (or would you have recommended, were this account recent) #6, #7, or neither? And, just to be clear, what would change were (a) #6 or (b) #7 to be applied? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Realistically, redacting the logs related to User:卍 卍 卍 (attack site URL) 卍 卍 卍 was unnecessary since that account was from 2006, and it is unlikely that anybody would be looking that far back through the logs. Additionally, it is impossible to globally lock or suppress the account since accounts that old do not have SULs (see this). Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I say, I'm mainly using this as a test case for what one is meant to do when (and and I do not feel that this is an academic discussion—this was fairly recent, for instance); and besides, I don't see the harm in redacting the logs? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it was recent, I would have locked and hid it because of the potential damage from the attack URL. I wouldn't have done #7, as I understand that feature is still a bit buggy, but Snowolf is the expert on that. MBisanz ^talk 15:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

But, as I say, if someone had already locally RevDeled all the occurrences of the user name in local logs (as I have done in this case), what would Locking + Hiding achieve/change? Alternatively, if these entries had not been RevDeled, would Locking + Hiding automatically RevDel them? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It would hide it in the ListUser list, but not revdel its edits/actions. MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bureaucrats

I was previously Francium12 where I had about 10,000 edits before I requested a right to vanish after a period of disillusionment with Wikipedia.

I have since returned and now edit under this name where I lack autopatrol and any 'reputation' as an editor of good standing. Because of this much more of my content is now a) drive by tagged like hell b) put up for AfD. It has given me a rather scary insight into how Wikipedia must be for new editors...

Is there any way I can be "unvanished" under my old account as I realise I’ve lost the reputation I built up over a number of years - frankly it is a little frustrating trying to generate content on this account! I have also made 9 edits under the old account. I’m sure I’ve breached numerous Wikipedia policies in the process! Quickbeam44 (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(nonadmin response) Hello Quickbeam/Francium. There are 3 issues here.

• Your recent article contributions being tagged. Based on a quick scan of your current talk page and some of those articles, I think the issue is that Wikipedia's philosophy has changed in the past few years. Your articles are around the boundary of what is considered notable, and our expectations of what is adequate sourcing right off the bat have increased from what they were a few years ago. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is reality.
• If indeed you are the vanished Francium12, then vanishing is supposed to have been final. You're not supposed to come back and put the mantle back on again when you feel like it. Vanishing is an exceptional measure for individuals who are not only "disillusioned" (who can just stop editing!) but who have stumbled onto some minefield where they really need to eradicate all traces. But then that's that, it's gone! You don't come back and revivify later and presumably there was a reason why you wanted the past buried. The process wonks may now either refuse your request or paradoxically rush to un-vanish you since you have actually not vanished and That is Not Allowed - regardless it shows you are rather confused about what you want.
• I think you're right that we make genuine new users feel a bit unwelcome by templating etc. But looking at your talk page you haven't been abused, you've gotten good advice, and some friendly and helpful (if probably semi-templated) advice. But it seems like you've continued to do more of the same rather than adjusting your behaviour. It's quite possible that if you were benefitting from an old-timer reputation, you might be cut a bit more slack. But the solution seems to be to modify your behaviour rather than try to exhume your reputation.

Though the above is quite harsh, welcome back and I hope you find a way to contribute where you will feel your contributions are valuable and valued. Martinp (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An option for him would be to simply put a note on the top of his page that indicates whom you used to be with a link to said page. That being said, when a user returns---even after vanishing---I think it is better to allow said user to tie his/her old account to their new one if they so choose. A) It helps avoid allegations of evasion/socking. B) It is in the open. C) Think of our former 'crat who vanished, then came back once (possibly twice) with new accounts. While I suspect that most vanished users who return with new accounts succeed in keeping their old name secret, many will ultimately be identified. This is especially true for users with a jaded past. When that happens it often results in turmoil and nastiness. I would ALWAYS prefer openness. At minimum, even when coming back anonymously, users returning from vanished should notify ArbCOM of their past just in case.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another data point in support of the notion that we should rethink our RTV policy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why that's a problem with the RTV policy. Could you elaborate? Regards SoWhy 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, a big problem is that it's unrealistic: human nature is to change one's mind, and vanished users change their minds all the time, and we don't have an elegant or consistent way of letting them do that. Just about anything else in Wikipedia has a straightforward "undo" mechanism, but this is one that's "designed" not to be undone, even though in practice that's not the case. Vanishings are undone, but haphazardly and often with bad feelings from many directions. 28bytes (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

RTV is designed to be un-revertable because it's not supposed to be reverted. RTV means you're gone, for good, and never coming back, ever. To wit: Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and may be refused. It is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity. -- Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing

Realistically, the majority of the people who invoke the policy are those who have turned themselves into pariahs on Wikipedia, who don't want their malfeasance redounding to them in the real world. "This user has been banned from Wikipedia" is not a search result most people want coming back from Google. RTV is a courtesy we extend to remedy that.

If, as you say, it is human nature to change one's mind, then that's the best reason I've heard yet for completely eliminating RTV as inherently unworkable. Because we can never be sure that someone really is gone for good. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite honestly I'd support it being eliminated, since as you say it is inherently unworkable. There's no reason someone whose username is their real name couldn't be renamed the usual way, and any userpages they no longer want deleted the usual way. And if they want to stop editing as well, then they can just stop editing. There doesn't need to be an irreversible-in-theory, sometimes-reversible-in-practice "official" process for it. 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't know for sure... even people who leave with the full intent to be gone for good can and do come back. Often via other names (ala the original poster.) As it currently stands, most of those people probably remain anonymous... does anybody really believe that Ecoletage/Pator Theo is really gone? Does anybody believe that Rlvese might not have a new account from which he's currently editing? Some people leave and want to start over for a legitimate reason. Some people NEED to leave for valid reasons (they used hteir real name or it got out.) But having a process that isn't ammendable to reality is short sighted. If a user that vanished returns and wants his/her old name to be associated with the new one, then what reasonable argument can be made to prevent it? "Oh no, you can't edit here, you vanished?" or "Oh no, we don't want to tie you to your past where you were a known vandal/FA contributor, because you vanished?" Those arguments are bilked with beaucracy. If a user returns and wants their old name to be tied to their new account, then we should ENCOURAGE that. The current RTV policy is good and well intended, but it needs provisions for the real world. (Marraige is supposed to be forever, but people get divorced all the time. Divorce is supposed to be the end, but divorcees get back together all the time.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It actually makes more sense to allow a vanished user to return under their old name if that's what they want. All we know about any particular editor is their editing history. The more often that history stays in one place, the better. If, however, the editor wishes to discard their history (or if, for technical reasons, the history is unrecoverable), then it's a different story. --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RTV (or "courtesy vanishing") acknowledges that people sometimes change their minds and come back and that in this case the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. The only change I think we should make to that is to change "will likely" to "has to be". If you exercise the RTV and then return openly, everything is reset to an "ante bellum" state, i.e. as if you never left. Also remember that Wikipedia:Clean start is already codified and you don't need to do anything when exercising a clean start, not even notify ArbCom, after all. There is no reason why someone vanished cannot exercise CLEANSTART, so I fail to see the problem. Regards SoWhy 20:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting conversation, and many good and valid points being brought to light. In fact I would even encourage this thread as a healthy RfC at some point. (But perhaps here and now is not the time or place?). In my mind the few things that strike me are this: If we "invoke" or "cite" RTV as a hard and fast policy guideline, yes/no, black/white, right/wrong - then we basically eliminate humanity from the equasion. No room for error, no allowence for interpertation, and no ability for forgiveness. In that sense the entire RTV guideline almost takes on a paradoxical quality. In fact I find it outright ironical that 2 of the first 10 edits to this guideline are by a renamed user. If for instance we take a look at the guideline in, I don't know - just for a random for instance: October of 2010, vs. how it stands a this moment we see these changes. The paradox for me is that while we can say "YOU" can not change "YOUR" mind, "WE" reserve the right to change our collective minds and rewrite this guideline as we see fit - or perhaps "as we want to fit it to the circumstances".

In fact, I'll be so bold as to say that the very FIRST statement I read when coming to en.wp:

• Welcome to Wikipedia,
• the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

is a misnomer. The more accurate statement would be the free encyclopedia that anyone MAY be able to edit. with a list of parameters which are unacceptable. NO - I am not suggesting that we not have rules, indeed they are a must. But we kid ourselves in attempting to portray the project as an open and welcoming environment at times I think.

It seems that User:Quickbeam44 has stepped into a proverbial field of landmines here; and I can easily envision him/her sitting at home muttering a WTF. For the record I will say: I could easily get behind 28bytes thoughts on this. I think there are legitimate times where "vanishing" (if you'll pardon the use of the word) an editors history is the right and compassionate thing to do. I also would openly welcome back any editor who had a change of heart and wanted to return to constructively contribute to our "open" project. People grow. People change. People have life altering experiences all the time. I don't much care for those "good-ole-boy exclusive clubs". <deep breath> I'll climb down off my soapbox now for the time being.

Now, if one of our kind 'crats would like to revert User talk:RTV User 545631548625 to its previous state, then I would applaud such an action. Someone may want to ask if it would be possible to merge the Francium12 edits with the Quickbeam44 edits - or if they even wish that. (I don't know what is technically possible here). Regardless of what is done here today(?), Welcome back Francium; I wish you the best in your future efforts here. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There actually was an RfC-ish sort of discussion about RTV on the Village Pump a few months back. The upshot was that someone suggested eliminating RTV, someone else suggested making it enforceable by blocks, everyone talked for a while, and then it petered out without any consensus or closure. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

1. We can't merge accounts, but we can use usurpation to get back to his old name, if he can somehow prove he is the old user (logging into the renamed account). 2. I have been criticized in the past and am in the minority of the crats in that I believe RTV should be flexible. Most crats seem to follow the policy that RTV is very different from retirement and if you invoke RTV, you can never come back. At least in the context of re-granting administrator rights. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

28Bytes probably made my point better than I could, but in my words 'never" is a long time. We allow editors to use a mechanism in the heat of the moment, to make a literally lifetime decision. But we can't even write a coherent policy. We say that " Vanishing is a last resort and should only be used when you wish to stop editing forever (emphasis added), then we talk about what happens if you return. SoWhy, you said " There is no reason why someone vanished cannot exercise CLEANSTART", but there is. Cleanstart is for editors not under sanctions or threat of sanctions, while we have allowed editors under threat of sanction to RTV. And return. I'd like to have a community discussion about how people can leave and return toth e project, and the conditions to be applied to each option, with only one caveat—that we never pretend that a request to leave forever is a viable option. We are better off if we design fair conditions for return, because the alternative is SPI hell.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, it's something that's granted to users "in good standing" on request. Someone who are under the threat of sanction or actually sanctioned are imho not "in good standing" and as such should not really be granted vanishing anyway. But my point is: Wikipedia:Clean start does not require the user in question to be in good standing; in fact, it explicitly mentions it as a way to remove your "bad" standing by restarting your account and keeping away from the things that sullied your reputation in the first place. The only time CLEANSTART cannot be used is when the user is actively banned, the account blocked or sanctions are in place (not that they are threatened by sanctions!). But even then ArbCom might lift sanctions to allow a CLEANSTART... So if RTV should only be applied to editors in good standing and CLEANSTART allows even those in bad standing to use it, there is no reason why someone vanished cannot exercise CLEANSTART. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I need a reminder on what the phrase 'in good standing" means. I'm aware of two recent RTV's; in neither case would I have thought 'in good standing" applied, but it is possible that Wikipedia has a definition contrary to the usual English meaning of the phrase. Moreover, if my understanding of (one of the rationales for) RTV is correct, it shouldn't be limited to those in good standing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to prove I am Francium here I am. What drove me away was what I felt was the increasing hostility to new content. I’ve been around since 2005ish when I edited as an IP and the culture of Wiki has changed dramatically in seven years.I loathe the increased bureaucracy (no offence!) and essentially I am an inclusionist stub writer (four article creations in the past 24 hours two dealing with the judicial institutions of Kyrgyzstan!). We can all change our minds can't we? Francium12 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat wondering...if your account Francium12 was renamed to User:RTV User 545631548625 then how are you editing from Francium12? Did you re-register the Francium12 account at some point after it was renamed? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Most likely through SUL. Graham87 03:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the vanishing, in carrying out the request, 'crat User:Hersfold laid out the procedure to request unvanishing, here. I would suggest that you follow that, by emailing from User:RTV User 545631548625. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied it's him and have gone ahead and done the unvanishing. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know you were once engaged to Claudia Schiffer Matt! Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Permanent

As I mentioned the last time this came up, the idea that RTV is supposed to be "permanent" (whatever that means, even blocks and bans aren't "permanent", but merely "indefinite") was the result of a WP:BOLD edit, and the rest has been seemingly merely "groupthink" since then. ("If the rules say so, it must be so...") There is no actual reason I know (save no individual being willing to allow it), that someone cannot come back after "vanishing". And as others have said above and in previous discussions. I would think that our policies and guidelines should take human nature in mind. We allow vandals to come back after having a change of heart, but not a vanisher? Please pardon me for saying that that is utterly ridiculous. We even have an WP:IAR policy to make certain that no rule is "set in stone" as it were.

All of that said, the easiest solution would be to split the concept of "vanishing" from the request to have userrpages/talk pages deleted. Two separate things, neither of which should "require" or "mandate" the other. (A request is just that, a request.) Neither as a demand by the editor, nor as a mandate by the deleter.

That and, claiming to vanish or retire should never be a way to avoid sanction. The "under a cloud" concept should apply to editors disappearing/vanishing/retiring as well. - jc37 01:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an extremely sensible approach. 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth (which may be very little ), I believe anyone who exercises an RTV, as opposed to retiring, has severed all ties with wikipedia, and thenew account, even if it is the old name, should not get any automatic privileges based on the old one. That being said, if someone can prove that s/he is the old account, then project members can make their decisions about that person based on the older history, so a new RfX may be easier to pass. -- Avi (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Rcsprinter123 2 is a couple of days over the week limit. Needs a crat to close. Thanks, Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear bureaucrats,

I received this message on my user talk page a few months ago while I was on an hiatus from Wikipedia. I'm back now. As the message states, I could ask here to have the administrative permissions back. Hence, my post here. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remove my admin permissions. It appears this is now the way admins can behave and the community has no problem with it, nor with them dismissing any attempt to call them out as cabalism. For the time being, I'm no longer willing to remain an admin in this climate. Not like I was really using my permissions, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, on hold for 24 hours . I'm introducing a practice from Meta that makes eminent sense. I asked Heim privately and he does not object to the delay. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, no problem with the delay. As the 24 hours are nearly up, I want to confirm that yes, I'm still going ahead with this. Right now I just need a clean break from Wikipedia (may use Wikibreak enforcer, too; haven't decided). As there shouldn't be any "cloud" in this case, I might be back for the tools later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please delay this. I have just discovered a problem with my IP address and I might not be able to edit at all without the admin bit or an IPblockexempt, so I'll need to handle that first. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears it's just going to be too difficult to manage this in my current location, so let's just cancel this request and I'll just use Wikibreak Enforcer to make myself stop using the tools. Sorry for the false alarm, and thanks for instituting the "on hold" system; seems to have proven itself here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for helping me with it. MBisanz ^talk 15:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, could someone please remove my admin rights and the bot flag from my bot? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, this sucks! I don't know anything about why this is happening, but I am not happy about hearing it. Peace :> Doc talk 07:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done thanks for all you've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave. Btw, I restored a few pages you deleted as CSD#U1 does not apply to user talk pages. WJBscribe (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it would work, but I tried a renaming User:Kumioko at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Request_to_reset_password_for_a_locked_account_with_no_Email. He had 300,000+ edits and somehow it went through. I locked the database and I am seeing some absurd watchlist replag. Why did this go through? What sort of damage did I manage to do? MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that the only "damage" done is the replag caused by the job created in changing the 300,000+ (which is probably closer to a million) instances of User:Kumioko in the database (and considering the fact that I'm posting this at all, 30 minutes after you posted, suggests that's the extent of the problem so far). Regardless, I'd jump on the wikitech-l and/or the irc channel to have someone double check things, if you haven't already. Something in code is definitely broken if that went thorough though... wow! (actually though, did it go through? I can see his log... the change name entry is unlinked for "Kumioko (renamed)", which seems weird. And the replag is gone now, on my end. I see that Kumioko posted in reply, in the thread on Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Request_to_reset_password_for_a_locked_account_with_no_Email.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it went through, that's how the rename log is set up, with the second instance not linked. The IRC channel reported the absurd replag, but no other problems. No explanation of why the limit was removed in the code though. We'll need someone who knows how to navigate the code changes better than I do. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the code is part of mw:Extension:RenameUser. I trawled through the change logs for a few minutes, going back a few months, and didn't see anything obvious. Reedy (talk · contribs) is probably a good choice for someone to get in touch with for help with running this all down.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The limit was removed here. By the way it is not possible to lock the database. Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is, I've done it a couple of times on nlwiki :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I definitely got MediaWiki:Readonlytext when trying to edit after the rename, but thanks for the link to the change. I will update our guideline. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My user name, User: Kazari, has been compromised.

I would like the new one I created, Kazari2, to replace it. I have a history back to 2005 and I'd like to keep it. Is there a way for me to prove I'm me? --Kazari2 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the account. Did you have an email set on the old account that you had ever used via Special:EmailUser to communicate with other editors who could identify you from it? Do you know any other Wikipedians in real life who could identify you? MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Being that the account is compromised, the compromiser may not changed the e-Mail of the account yet. MBisanz can send an e-Mail to the compromised account with some phrase, if Kazari2 gets, s/he can post it here to verify original ownership but this would need to be done now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 00:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I emailed him stating a fact that only the recipient of the email will know. If Kazari2 can state that fact, that will prove those accounts are under common control. It will not prove the current person in control is the original person. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get anything. I tried resetting the password several times, so I think the compromiser must have changed the email address (or I didn't set one, which seems unlikely.) What bothers me most was that he/she was blanking pages I had edited in the past. --Kazari2 (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty then, do you have any way to prove you were the person who used to control the account. I see you edited American Society of News Editors extensively. I would even settle for an email from an @asne.org address as proving you are Kazari. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, my idea was worth a shot. Sorry it didn't work out as I hoped it would. My only other suggestion is to have a checkuser confirm that someone else is using your account and that you are using the IP that your original account also used. If the range intersects, that can be used to identify however, WP:CHECKUSER stats that you would need to give permission for such an identification. Would you approve of a checkuser doing this? Would you accept this as enough evidence MBisanz?—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I explored that venue privately and it was inconclusive. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're not a checkuser.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I contacted a checkuser and asked them to review the situation and indicate if the two accounts were historically owned by the same person. They indicated it was inconclusive. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is a setback from owning dynamic IPs. Where the ranges at least compliant because if not, then there's something else going on. Either way, I'm beat and heading to bed. I wanted to be on a wikibreak but it seems to be difficult to keep my self on it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Where would you like the asne.org address to send a verification? I can get this done tomorrow. --Kazari2 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You can send it to mattbisanzyahoo.com. I will not reveal the email to anyone else. I'll rename you to your old name when I get the email. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have received the email validating his identity and performed the rename. Apologies for the difficulty. MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(Celticmadhatter (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've requested vanishing of two doppelgangers of mine accidently, when I mean username change. Could someone rename the two doppelgangers but not vanish them? Also, remove the emails? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If the emails were sent to some bureaucrat address, then they don't need removing, they just need not acting on (which I assume the first part of your request here would take care of). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also asked MBisanz (he recently made an edit) on his talk page. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done by MBisanz (talk · contribs) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back from the world of the dead I guess. Can I be resysopped, please? :-) Thanks. Regards, Húsönd 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Welcome back. WilliamH (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators has been updated for June 2012. For some reason, MediaWiki either did not send a copy of three of the e-mails to MadmanBot or the Toolserver never received them. However, MediaWiki did return Success on all thirteen, so we can be as sure that the e-mails were sent as we would be if we sent them via Special:EmailUser (which is in fact what is used on the backend).

As of next month, updates will be performed automatically on the first of the month and won't rely on me (yay!); I just wanted to make sure all functionality was bullet-proof before doing that. It won't be a problem that previous updates haven't been on the first of the month (and thus removal is still pending) because inactive administrators will not be reported twice. Also, MadmanBot will now check the latest inactivity report once a day and remove administrators who have resumed activity, so no one needs to do that manually anymore. Cheers! — madman 19:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for automating this for us. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All e-mails have now automatically been posted; those three specific e-mails were just delivered approximately two and a half hours late. o_O; — madman 23:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this, madman. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, Madman. In related news, I have done the procedural desysopping as of May for inactive admins and updated the page accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I started a thread at WT:RFA about this RFA's transclustion. I personally think this should just go away, but too many have commented for me to do it myself. If a crat or admin could take a look. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, any admin can close a clearly WP:NOTNOW RFA. I've done so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone can admin or not if its obvious enough. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the 'crats comments, especially Deskana, on the matter of WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW are pretty clear too. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@Monty: You're quite right that it doesn't have to be an admin; however, it should be made clear somewhere that it should be an experienced user. There are some well-meaning but relatively green editors who frequent RFA, and it would be a bad idea IMHO to encourage them to "be bold" in closing an RFA to "gain admin-like experience" for a future RFA of their own. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Floquenbeam. I'd considered doing it myself, but realized at least four of the !voters were admins, and as a non-admin I figured it was safer ask someone to check my thinking.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please change my name from "Vasvaseh" to "Atrak". Thanks.--Vasvaseh (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CHU for changing your username. But it looks like you only have one edit, so this is perhaps not necessary; you could just create the new username.  Frank  |  talk  20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I need change name for using other Wikimedia projects because I have changed my username in Persian Wikipedia to Atrak. Please you do so. Thanks--Vasvaseh (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, the place you need to go is WP:CHU.  Frank  |  talk  17:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey crats. Is one of you available to desysop Rich Farmbrough. I am starting to close the case and that remedy has passes. As an arbcom clerk, --Guerillero | My Talk 18:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done, but in the future, could you please link to the case? (I mean, I was able to find Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision easily enough from your contribs, but it's always nice to have that up front) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have waited until the case was actually closed, but as it is was going to be a fait accompli, it shouldn't matter that much. -- Avi (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Perhaps we should get these requests after the cases are closed? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: Rich's two flagged bots were blocked, so I've gone ahead and removed the flags from Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs) and Femto Bot (talk · contribs) just to keep things nice and tidy. He had two other potential bots in Mirror Bot (talk · contribs) and Translate Bot (talk · contribs), but those are largely inactive and, since they're not flagged as bots, I Officially™ don't care about them. I rarely involve myself in Arbcom issues, so I dunno if any action needs to be taken about them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on this topic --Guerillero | My Talk 00:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Apathy, woo! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been navel-gazing about admin recall and about ways to practically unbundle the admin tools without getting the software changed. I'd really like to avoid, for now, getting into a discussion of whether either would be a good idea or not, and what all the details would be like, what color the bike shed would be, and all the other stuff that always, without exception, 100% of the time hopelessly bogs down a WT:RFA thread. I'm just after some data from the current 'crats, as I continue to mull the idea over.

1. If a current admin stated clearly and unambiguously "From now on, I will never block anyone, no matter what the circumstances, and understand that I'll be immediately desysopped if I do, whether or not it was a good block, and understand I can't renege on this promise without going thru a new RFA", would any of you current 'crats, without requiring a change to current policy, desysop the admin if they blocked someone in the future, assuming when the time came they didn't want to be desysopped?
2. If an RFA candidate clearly and unambiguously stated the same thing in their RFA, and assuming that consensus was clear that adminship was only supported contingent on that promise, would any of you current 'crats, without requiring a change to current policy, close such an RFA as "successful, with the limitation that the user may never block anyone for any reason, on threat of immediate involuntary desysop" without requiring a change to current policy?
3. If an RFA was ever closed as described in #2, would any of you current 'crats desysop the admin if they blocked someone in the future, assuming when the time came they didn't want to be desysopped?
4. If the RFA had been closed without the limitation, would any of you current 'crats desysop the admin if they blocked someone in the future, assuming when the time came they didn't want to be desysopped?

I'm using blocking as an example, but I assume the answer wouldn't change if "block anyone" was replaced by any other admin action that comes in the bundle.

Please keep in mind the clarity and unambiguity of the promise; this would not require you to judge the consensus of a desysop discussion, or make a messy judgment call about whether the infraction was "serious" or not, or whether they're a "good admin" or not, or anything else where people could complain you weren't being reasonable or fair. It would be a strict "did they or didn't they" determination.

Again, I'm much more interested if any of you feel you would currently do the desysop, if such a thing happened tomorrow, without an RFC or a policy change discussion somewhere to support it.

Obviously I'm not in any position to demand others not sidetrack these specific questions into a discussion about whether people making these promises is a good idea or not, or whether they would consider such a promise when voting in an RFA, etc. But I'll ask it anyway.

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I only speak for myslef, but my answer would be "no" to each of the four scenarios. If you read the first line of Wikipedia:ADMIN#Review_and_removal_of_adminship carefully, you will note that crats are specifically not listed as the type of user who can remove admin rights for abuse. I would view blocking in violation of a promise not to block as an abuse of admin rights and therefore not something crats could handle. Also, while Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_recall permits an admin to vary their individual criteria, it makes it presumptively mandatory that they can always back out of a recall request, even after being recalled. I would read this provision as superseding their promise or the crat's RFA close. Basically, I don't believe someone can contract their way out of the concept of voluntary or inactive removal by the crats to provide an involuntary remedy. MBisanz ^talk 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-crat comment but all of the 4 questions would require writing new policies for the answer to be "yes". The current set of policy and practices clearly does not provide for any concept of "limited adminship" beyond specific sanctions the community or the arbcom might want to impose on a specific users, and which clearly can include "dont block anybody ever", silly as that may be. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply MBisanz. I'm not necessarily trying to sell this idea to any crats, but just to put the idea out there, you could look at these (especially #1) as a kind of delayed self-requested desysop, and self-requested desysops are something crats can do under current policy. Indeed, that's how I would look at it: a self-request, rather than a removal for abuse; I think a case could be made that such a desysop wouldn't break current policy. Still, the opinions of actual crats is what matters, so thanks much for the reply (and you too Snowolf). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No x4 for me. And I'd be really surprised if any crat said yes and astonished if it was one appointed since, say, 2006. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dweller. Interesting you say that, I was kind of thinking to myself that if any 'crat said "yes", it would probably be a veteran from the olden days. In extraordinarily general terms, I think this place used to operate with the philosophy "that which is not specifically forbidden is allowed", but has become "that which is not specifically allowed is forbidden". I don't think any policy really truly forbids the practice I'm describing, but since no policy specifically allows it, it can't be done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the various proposals to make "administrator recall" binding have failed to attract much support, I would be surprised to see any bureaucrat answer those questions in the affirmative (regardless of their year of appointment). The very narrow criteria for bureaucrats and stewards to remove the flag have served us well. Whatever its other strengths and limitations may be, the arbitration committee has been effective in dealing with abuse of the admin tools. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have my administrative privileges restored. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Welcome back. WilliamH (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Last year, I logged into Wikipedia to make an edit, and saw that my administrator privileges had been removed. It felt almost like a punch in the face. But I understood the logic behind it--even though I would check my talk page once or twice month, I hadn't edited in a long time. But it left a bitter taste in my mouth any time I thought about making an edit or even donating during a fundraiser, and I never came back.

I wasn't going to cause any drama, or black out my user page or anything. I just didn't come back. But earlier this year, I got an e-mail about a survey about a worsening problem of inactive administrators (I have no idea if the survey was legitimate or not) and it made me wonder if you all knew how these actions were perceived...and as a man on the outside, I figured I'd give you my perspective.

I joined Wikipedia and became an administrator when I was in medical school. I stayed pretty active throughout residency and into becoming an attending physician. I worked on a mixture of article writing and administrative tasks, and I think I was well regarded for the quality of my writing and how I dealt with problematic users. I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and the Collaboration of the Fortnight (later week, now month).

Positive interactions with colleagues and appreciation of the Wikipedia community were major motivators for me. Even during periods where my clinical practice has been very busy, I would still try to pop back in once I had more time. But when I logged in and saw User:RL0919's message, it felt like going somewhere I thought I'd been welcome, and finding they'd changed the locks specifically for me. Especially since no one had bothered to ask me if I was still around. I was checking my talk page at least once a month, and checking e-mail multiple times a day. It would have taken someone less than a minute to just ask me before summarily suspending my privileges.

Even though User:RL0919's message was careful to state that the suspension was procedural only, I knew that even if I requested to be reinstated, this involuntary suspension would always be on my log, a record tainted. Adding insult was this edit to my user page by User:MZMcBride. The action and edit summary ("not an admin") were correct, but it made it sound like I had falsely claimed to be an administrator. [Edit: It's not my intention to imply anything negative about these users — I believe they both acted correctly and according to policy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)]

Perhaps Wikipedia has a surplus of article writers and administrators and it's not worth it to coddle and soothe the ones you don't need anymore. I recognize that most of them are probably not coming back and that it would take a lot of time in aggregate to be more tactful. But I'm sure there are others like me. For a man who's been a member for six years, a hiatus of a year isn't unthinkable. You have Wikipedians who are professionals, who may have extremely busy careers, and yet be extremely valuable contributors. Consider treating them with a little more tact. I am gratified to see that you're now informing administrators prior to involuntarily removing their privileges. This belated decision is one I strongly support, and that's the main reason I'm writing to you today. I'm sure it takes significant time and effort both to contact the administrators and to ensure that everyone's been contacted before you remove their privileges. But I'm very glad you're doing it. Had such a system been in place last year, I would probably still be a part of this project.

Thanks for all you do. I'm writing this because I want this project to continue to thrive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You were offended because adminship is not automatically for-life even if you're inactive? Please, this is silly. The locks weren't changed at all, you're free to edit as everybody else, and you can request your +sysop bit at any time with one simple edit. I fail to see where the problem is. Adminship is not a right or a crown, it's simply a set of buttons. If you don't use them for a long time, they get removed, but you're free to request them and you can get them back almost immediately. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to add that your last logged admin action dates back from 2008, and you've done 1 edit or so in the last two years. Please, remember that +sysop is not a big deal, it's not a crown or a priviledge. It's a couple of buttons you get to use. And you come off the wrong way by starting to list that you founded Wikiproject X and Y, it clearly has no relevance to the matter at hand. I fail to see what there was to ask you, you don't use something, it gets removed and if you feel the need to use it again, you simply come here and ask for it. I really don't see where the big deal is. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Snowolf, I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I wasn't offended, or angry. If I were, perhaps I would have posted angry messages, or placed large messages on my user page about quitting Wikipedia, or so on. I didn't get mad, I just never came back. I obviously don't hold any ill will against anybody (and, for the record, I still donate to Wikipedia). And I'm not writing this to express a grievance for myself. I don't need anything for myself. I just wanted you to get a sense of how seemingly minor actions or words can be perceived. There is a large group of Wikipedians who feel passionately about the project. These are people who may not always have time to contribute, but still try to come back because they care. Even when they're busy, they know the project is still there, and still hope to come back to it. Coming back and finding that privileges have been removed — privileges you hadn't expected to be removed, because that wasn't done before — can trigger surprising feelings. These are people with long-term dedication to Wikipedia, who may be here for years, and then away for years. I think I fit this group well, and I wanted to illustrate things from my perspective — that's why I discussed my contributions. It's not meant to imply that I should merit some special treatment — I'm not asking for anything for myself here. Now if I'm the only one like this, then fine. But my concern is that you will potentially lose good editors, because many of these people will not even come back to edit. It doesn't matter if they were actively blocking or protecting — the way you approach someone will affect if they end up eventually returning to the project or not. Since all of you are highly active members, it occurred to me that you may not realize how it feels to come back to an event like this and that with relatively simple steps, you can perhaps even encourage administrators to return to active contribution. I'm not asking you to do anything specific, just to keep these points in mind when you're reaching out to inactive contributors. It may seem silly to you, but I think this has the potential to affect long-term retention of valuable users. I'm not trying to criticize anyone, but I feel that sometimes an outside perspective can be insightful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But you still haven't come back, except to make this complaint. And I fail to see why discovering that your admin "privileges" have been suspended – not removed, suspended – as a result of your very extended hiatus is such a big deal. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't perceive it as a complaint. The terminology I used is from the suspension notice on my talk page: "your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return." — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I still fail to see the problem, but you are clearly complaining by saying things like "it left a bitter taste in my mouth any time I thought about making an edit". Would you have made any edits had that notice been placed on your page? Honestly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, yes. I had been toying with returning to more active editing for a while, and had I realized that my adminship was about to expire, I would certainly have logged in. I normally don't log in from work so as not to jeopardize security for my (former) administrator account, since I can't guarantee security from that computer. You're right; I suppose I am expressing dissatisfaction, and so that makes it a complaint. Look, you don't have to take any action or change any policy based on my words. but if a patient (or employee) were to leave my practice, I know I would appreciate knowing why. Maybe it's something I wouldn't have realized. Maybe other patients feel the same way. I don't necessarily have to change, but at least I'd appreciate knowing. I thought that you all might feel the same way. If you don't, that's fine; you can just ignore what I've written. You guys run the show here; how you deal with inactive editor/administrators is entirely up to you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't run anything here, but what I see very clearly is that you're not prepared to contribute unless you're an administrator, which I find rather sad. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Malleus. Of course it's more subtle than that. My contributions had stopped while I was still an administrator. And who knows? If I find more time, maybe I will resume active contributing (despite not being an administrator). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on here. Per our Administrator policy section on inactivity, it's pretty clear that there should be at least two posts to the administrator's talk page as well as an email if possible. It does not appear that ANY of these steps were taken. That raises the question of how many other desysops were done outside of policy. It's very clear that this one was done without any of the required notices. An apology is owed to Knowledge Seeker. Risker (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, if I recall correctly, when it was first decided to desysop after 1 year of inactivity, and the RFC was final, someone immediately asked a Steward on Meta to desysop a whole swath of them. People here complained at the time that there was no warning issued beforehand, and since then, the multiple emails and warnings have been sent out. As I recall, the first batch was really large. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Risker, this is very worrisome. Knowledge Seeker was one of our most nicest and respected administrators when I first joined Wikipedia back in 2005, and I'm glad to see his name popup again. He became inactive for reasons that is fully understandable, as many of the editors who were active back in 2005 became inactive because of real life and a whole new generation of Wikipedians came along. He should have been notified about his impending desysopping, and I don't know why they never did. This is basically a slap to the face for someone who was highly admired like him. An apology is owned to Knowledge Seeker, and hopefully Knowledge Seeker will find the time to start editing again, even in a limited capacity as the knowledge he brings to the project is invaluable. Secret ^account 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Why the imperative to treat long-inactive administrators with kid gloves? Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Knowledge Seeker, your desysop without notification was a mistake and a majority of the community are regretful that it happened. When this new rule was first implemented, about 200 admins were desysoped without sending the proper notifications. Relevant discussion at this noticeboard are here and at meta are here. This was regretful and thankfully has since been corrected. We're sorry you were one of the 200 that this happened to. If you would like your admin bit back, you can leave a note here. 64.40.57.13 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it was definitely not done according to policy and that involved mistakes from multiple people. It's natural that some people would be upset by a sudden change in their user role with no advanced warning, which is why the policy that was approved (and which I supported) included a requirement for prior notice. But it was done and it had to be dealt with. My sig ended up on the notices because I volunteered to perform the after-the-fact notifications. Everyone who has contacted me about it since, including Knowledge Seeker, has been very reasonable about the whole thing, and I don't see any reason to give him flack for bringing it up. This isn't about "admin for life" status (which I think should be done away with, for whatever that opinion is worth); it's about treating people with a bit of respect when they have been valued contributors in the past and haven't done anything wrong. Yes, I know there are plenty of times when that doesn't happen, but I for one was not trying to contribute another negative instance. So definitely apologies are due to Knowledge Seeker for the unfortunate situation. --RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, that's complete bullshit. When pending changes was introduced last year the overwhelming majority of editors lost the right that they previously had to see their edits on the main page without being monitored. But nobody cared about that, because those editors weren't administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't edit the main page or pay attention to what goes on with it, but even assuming there was a problem with what was done there, I don't see how that changes this situation. The old saw about "two wrongs don't make a right" applies. --RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  No it doesn't, and I wasn't talking about the main page, which regular editors have never been able to edit, I was talking about the main page for an article, rather than its talk page. A more apposite quote is "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors". Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  So you mean the trial that has been the subject of multiple RFCs involving hundreds of participants, and you're saying "nobody cared" what the effect on editors was. Got it, thanks for the insight. --RL0919 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I mean; I'm always amazed at how many refuse to see what's staring them in the face. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Knowledge Seeker, this all boils down to one question: would you like your admin bit back? If so, just say the word and we'd be happy to return it. As far as I can tell, there's no valid reason to not return the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It also boils down to the fact that a consensus quickly emerged that the way you were desysopped was not optimal and shouldn't happen again, so our community agrees with the basic point you came here to make. Apologies that you were one of the guinea pigs of the first batch. --08:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)

It's an interesting exercise to copy this discussion into a text editor and alternately highlight all the contributions of each individual editor; it really highlights their overall approach to interacting with other users. I think I'll join (thankfully the majority) in saying: sorry Knowledge Seeker, we did not handle your inactivity as well as we should have, and have with subsequent editors; and although the issues you raise have subsequently been corrected, thank you for reminding us that we should always seek the full facts of an issue rather than jump to conclusions. I won't join the editor whose quotation from a philosopher who argued for reason and wisdom in leadership rather than rhetoric and persuasion, demonstrates precisely that by negative example. Happy‑melon 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

KS, we are sorry that the project did not handle the first round of desysoppings according to policy. We have since put in rather complex safeguards to prevent that from happening again. We did not intend to discourage you from editing and were acting at the instructions of the community who felt that inactive accounts with administrative permissions were an undesirable risk. We are more then happy to return the rights whenever you desire them.

MF, I agree that being an admin does not include the vesting of treatment with white gloves. I suspect though that my colleagues and my own responses in this thread are infused with the concept of editor retention. KS was once an active and valuable editor and admin who has since become inactive. While his feelings were hurt by the removal of admin rights and people can disagree over whether people should view admin rights in that manner, I do wish to retain him as a constructive editor and am willing to admit where the project failed by its own standards in handling his situation. MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea from that the first round of desysoping was contrary to policy? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_23#Removal_admin_bits_of_inactive_admins. The notification timings were not consistent with what was required by the desysopping policy. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I want to thank you all for chiming in. I know Snowolf and Malleus Fatuorum don't quite agree with me, but I'm glad they challenged me so I could at least try to explain. Nihonjoe, I'll gladly accept the administrator bit back, but that's not why I posted — I came here to change a process: to ensure that suspension of inactive administrators was being handled differently, to try to change it if it wasn't, and to reinforce it if it was. Those of you who may know me from before probably know that I rarely go into personal feelings like this, but I felt it was essential to describe since other editors may feel the same way. Fortunately RL0919 and MBisanz are more eloquent than I: It's not about power or privilege, or by babying editors, it's about respect and feeling welcome. It's about retaining good editors. It's not about being an administrator per se — imagine instead that the user pages of inactive users were deleted, with a notice to let an administrator know if it was wanted back. I would guess that some would feel snubbed, that they could easily have been contacted beforehand. Because in my opinion, asking beforehand is not the same thing at all as removing, then restoring if asked. I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback to see that out-of-policy desysopping was allowed to proceed. I fully understand that it could happen as a mistake, but back when I was more active on Wikipedia, if an administrator were desysopped (or a page protected, or a user blocked, etc), and it were discovered to be contrary to policy, it would have been immediately undone. It's hard to imagine Wikipedia has changed so much that it was thought acceptable to just leave it unless someone spoke up. Did no one think of reaching out to those users, explaining that there had been an error, and inviting them to return?

In any case, thank you all for your support — I didn't come expecting apology but it was certainly nice to feel this camaraderie, appreciation, and mutual respect again. Those are the qualities I always loved about Wikipedia. I'll hope to be around more often. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Bit restored. Welcome back. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some older requests at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple that could use a second look from a crat or a clerk. I've tried to do the clear ones as they come in, but some seem like they could have an unclear meaning or backstory. No rush, but thanks in advance. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My review, I hope it helps:

• HalcyonDays11 → Mayfair14, Cignorm → chhapariaanurag are requests in response to a concern posted on their talk pages (HalcyonDays11 is blocked as {{usernameblock}}). Edits indicate a conflict of interest but that doesn't prevent a rename. Maybe just a message to Chhapariaanurag about real name.
• Maxfordhamllp → RotundaWIKI, company name. The new name doesn't denote any type of authority, so it's seems fine to me.
• Rwsmithco → RubeSmithCanaryOwnder, same as above but their only edit has been to insert a link to their website (it has been reverted since), so I think they're less likely to be editing constructively. Maybe we could ask them to acknowledge WP:COI, and wait to see if there's any response from them.
• Elementalwiki → VisiPrisma, target user was created yesterday (May 13); I'll leave a message to confirm if they are the same user. The target name is peculiar but apart from being a type of chair I don't see anything promotional, and the user's contributions are totally unrelated.
• Usnames → USNamesLori, user was unblocked to request that particular target name, and they have declared that they mean to edit according to policy. As the unblocking admin stated there may be differing views on whether the new name is appropriate or not.
• Booth Transport → Lindsay Booth, user has been working in the article about Lindsay Booth, founder of Booth Transport Ltd., so both names were inappropriate. I left them a message and they have placed a new request, Booth Transport → BoothD. I think it still hints heavily to the company's name, but it's a crat's call.
• Blackabyss221 → Count of Tuscany, no problem that I can see. I think the title doesn't exist nowadays, and it might be a reference to Dream Theater's Black Clouds & Silver Linings. User's contributions are vast and constructive.

Overall I think that most of them are good to go. I don't see any particularly troubling backstory, rather the usual case of users with an inappropriate username (and a COI) that were asked to request a username change, and did so — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did some, but some I want a second opinion on because I've been doing a lot of these and want more views beside my echo chamber. Also, why aren't you a crat yet? MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment :). Maybe in time I'll go through the process, but not soon — Frankie (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think both the "Usnames" and "Booth Transport" editors need to pick a name completely different than their companies or groups. I will be back helping a lot more with 'crat tasks after the first week of June. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If "Lindsay Booth" is the user's name, I see no reason why they shouldn't edit under that name. The COI issue can be dealt with separately. WJBscribe (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with WJB. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a conversation with User:Usnames inviting them to choose another name, but they declined. Upon their request I've reviewed previous discussions regarding this, in particular the fairly recent case of User:Mark at Alcoa (links [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]), and I think there is a consensus that the main concerns regarding a username are if it is the company's name alone (as covered by WP:ORGNAME) and whether it represents a group account, and that other concerns such as advertising are to be handled separately. The user only made one edit before being blocked, which was to insert a link to their website, but they have now stated that they plan to edit constructively. Regarding User:Booth Transport I left them a note looking for clarification, but they haven't answered yet — Frankie (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. It looks like you're taking a break. We'll welcome you back when it's finished. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – See note below. Maxim_(talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since there was a discussion about me here it would have been nice to have been notified. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

It was merely a formality for processing the results of the Arbcom case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion there was also some talk about what to do with two of his bots. I think a courtesy notification would have been appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be something to take up with the ArbCom clerks then. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't see what the discussion about the bots had anything to do with the ArbCom clerks. Rich was notified about being desysopped on his talk page, which was the direct result of the ArbCom case. G actually said he had no opinion (and hence no involvement) about the second part of the discussion, which is the only thing Rich can have an issue with. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed even blocking them was extremely rude, and done out of process. I hadn't read deep enough to see that they had been de-flagged. Rich Farmbrough, 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich: the next time we discuss your impending desysop or the imminent deflagging of your bots, we will certainly inform you. Maxim_(talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The time is due to desysop the latest batch of inactive admins, however they have not received the second batch of notifications which informs them that their desysopping is imminent. The first notification gives them a month's notice. How should we proceed? WilliamH (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Give them the second notice. They've been inactive a while... a tad longer won't hurt, especially if we've been inefficient in our administration. --Dweller (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

what is the current edit count threshold for changing a username? — Ched :  ?  12:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been assuming it's 50K for most of the last year but it's conceivable the goalposts have shifted once more. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

do you know if I would lose my admin tools if I did so? — Ched :  ?  12:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean, if we tried to change the name of an admin with >50K edits, would he lose his tools? I think the worry would be more about some edits reattributing and others not, rather than permissions. Or perhaps the software would simply refuse to do the rename. Someone more technical than me might know. But I'm not sure why this discussion is here, rather than at BN itself? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The limit was blown away when User:Kumioko was renamed, and hence shown to be historical. Shortly afterwards the guidance/policy was changed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

You still keep log actions and things when you get renamed, and if you lose sysop tools, they could be re-granted by the renaming 'crat. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Done by WilliamH earlier today. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I rarely use my bit anyways... so take it away.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see you haven't logged an admin action since February, but it's still necessary for other useful things such as viewing deleted revisions. Are you quite sure? WilliamH (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a shame to see Balloonman go, but he can always ask for the bit back as I don't believe he'd be leaving under a cloud. WilliamH, I know you're a little demoralised at the number of desysop's you've made recently, but second guessing Balloonman shouldn't be your role. Worm^TT(talk) 14:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really that, it's just that I'm sure many of us have felt disenchanted here before and considered to walk away. I'm glad that I did not do so when the thought once entered my head though, and it is not a bad thing to extend that courtesy to others. But it is now very clear from his contributions that he has made that decision. Bit removed, this is obviously not a cloud, just exasperation. WilliamH (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been debating it for a while... and getting dragged into the latest debate was the last draw... an assinine discussion over a single word where the exclusion of a word has no material impact on the article, but the inclusion of the word could be misleading. DUMB DUMB DUMB debate... as are most debates here. I thought about it all weekend. If I chose to return, it will probably be under a new name and a new identity... but right now I don't see that happening... I've deleted my email from this account and changed my password to something that I am unlikely to remember in a matter of days and deleted my watchlist. This site has sapped too much energy that I should be spending elsewhere.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an terrible shame, but I wish you the best in whatever you do. Worm^TT(talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly a pity, but I'm glad you have put things in a perspective which suits you. In the grand scheme of things, it is after all, just a website. Thanks for you administrative errors and good luck in your future endeavours. WilliamH (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Was "administrative errors" a Freudian slip? Or did you mean to say "administrative efforts"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hah, oh my. Both, I'd say. Thank you for your contributions in all the roles you have been in, and good luck. WilliamH (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to computer problems, I'm likely to be restricted to using public computers for several weeks. I don't want to use my main account on public computers for fear that my admin tools will be compromised, but it's inconvenient to be using only my public-computer account for so long, so I'd like to request that the primary account be de-sysopped. I don't want anyone to have reason to say that I resigned under a cloud, so please don't do this unless (1) you've looked through my recent editing and talk history and (2) you would confidently resysop me upon request. I plan to request a re-sysop as soon as my own computer is back. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done No signs of stormy weather, just healthy discussion befitting an active admin. Desysopped and ready to resysop on your request. bibliomaniac15 06:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd question, I know, but how would one contact a sysadmin? - jc37 00:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you meaning these guys? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was helpful : )

Though it looks like I may be back here asking for help with something in the near future...) - jc37 14:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

While I recently updated that list on behalf of jeremyb, please use #wikimedia-tech to contact them rather than poke them directly, that is, as far as I know, the preferred contact method. As it stands right now, the whole sysadmin structure is a bit more complicate that it appears. Most likely, whichever requests you have can be answered by a lot more people that that, it's not as straightforward as it used to be, so just ask in -tech or use bugzilla. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Went there, and was pretty much told that it wasn't worth their time (I was asking for a password restore on an account - to be used for AWB - that I had previously confirmed was me. Fortunately someone else was able to help me through another avenue.) Thanks for the head's up though. - jc37 20:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that recently a couple of requests for voluntary desysopings have been emailed to the list, rather than posted here. As such requests are not urgent and do not involve private information, I would prefer to see them posted here for transparency but wondered if others had different views on this issue. It's perhaps not terribly important but I generally think it best if matters that can be dealt with on-wiki are kept here... WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think for transparency they should be posted on wiki somewhere. Secretlondon (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree with the general need for transparency, but what transparency interest is served here that outweighs the utility of less regulation? If someone is desysopped, it doesn't particularly matter what they say when doing so because their resysop request will be judged by the contemporaneous behavior. On the other hand, requiring them to make a public request may deter those who otherwise might seek desysop quietly. It's the same sort of logic behind having to pay a fee to register a corporation, but having no fee to de-register a corporation because you don't want to deter people from complying with laws they otherwise have little incentive to comply with. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

On-wiki allows for confirmation, but that same confirmation can come from emailing the crats directly from EmailUser. *shrug* I really don't see it as a particularly big deal one way or the other; it doesn't seem like something we need to explicitly . EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

...I shouldn't type up stuff when I'm getting sleepy and talking on the phone, apparently. It doesn't seem like something we need to explicitly disallow; I really don't think it's that much of an issue (not explicitly what the mailing list is for, but not a gross violation of transparency either), though we also haven't been able to desysop for very long either, so it's not like I can say "historically, it hasn't been a problem". EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys :).

So, as part of the new Article Feedback Tool, a free text box is being introduced. So, in collaboration with the community, we built a lot of reviewing tools to hide inappropriate content, request oversight, so on and so forth. Obviously having anyone able to use these is less-than-ideal - they're potentially sensitive - and so we held a Request for Comment, advertised fairly widely, that concluded the most appropriate people to give these rights to were admins, rollbackers and reviewers.

Obviously, this means that the rights being given out are now slightly different; they include new abilities. The question is, do people feel that processes like WP:RFP also need alteration? From my perspective (as a staffer and as an editor) the new abilities make little or no difference; they're for the triaging and handling of inappropriate content, which is what all those userrights were created for anyway. The acumen necessary to use these tools appropriately (a demonstrated ability to distinguish good from bad) is what should already be taken into account for those rights. Still, I'm asking here to check in; you guys, as 'crats, have had to handle this longer than most admins, and I thought you'd be able to give me a near-definitive answer :).

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's letting people view potentially sensitive information, my first thought is this straw poll where the the WMF GCs said the view-deleted right shouldn't be given to non-admins (at least as I read it). Assuming they are ok with rollbackers and reviewers who have had a less stringent review of their bona fides than admins being able to view sensitive deleted AFT comments, it shouldn't be a problem. More practically, we don't de-rollback or de-reviewer people who go inactive, but do de-admin inactive people. If rollbackers and reviewers are gaining access to an unlogged means to view sensitive information, it might behoove us to revisit that convention. Also, RFP works fine now, but you may want to incorporate a centralized place for people to request deletions or what not from AFT entries. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, GC is fine with it :). The really egregious stuff should be oversighted anyway, and only oversighters'll be able to see that. That's a really good idea on the centralisation point; perhaps the RevDel approach would be lightweight enough to work? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That probably works fine. Can you also create a very idiot-proof instruction as to how to delete the different kinds of material? I don't think a lot of admins or rollbackers have experience there. MBisanz ^talk 12:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea :). I'll add it to my to-do list before the big launch; thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've read the poll, and so on. I think that the new rights are fine with reviewer, but shouldn't be part of rollbacker. If we want to give them to someone, we can give them reviewer as well (a not uncommon thing) and this also allows for removing rollbacker but retaining reviewer, in those situations where it may be appropriate. I see that the assigning of the rights already has been done. Where do you suggest would be the appropriate place be to ask for this change? - jc37 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess the appropriate thing would be to hold a new RfC. The community said clearly that they were fine with it being a part of rollback - to justifiably throw that out you'd have to show that the community has changed its mind. Bear in mind that I believe this would be a very bad idea for the tool. We're predicting an extremely high number of comments - assuming that half of the rights are duplicated (that is, 50 percent of rollbackers also have reviewer, which I think is extremely unlikely, but, for the sake of argument...) you're talking about cutting over 2,000 users out of the ability to review comments - we need all the people we can get. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the response.

First, let me clarify that I'm not at all being adversarial in this. So please smile : )

As for the poll, adding the rights to rollbacker/reviewer was something that even the proposers of the poll were unsure of, and looking it over concerning rollbacker (and reviewer), I see a fair number of questions and concerns. So it's probably not a big deal to start a new discussion on this for clarity.

And my comments are to try to help, not hinder your plan. I was just trying to express that rollbacker has an history of difference of opinion about it ever since it became a user group.

It's just likely less disruptive (read that as less drama : ) - if it (and the other single user-right user groups) did not have additional user-rights added to them.

That said, I think the reviewer user group would be perfect for this. Similar kind of trust level, and it's already a user group containing user-rights related to marking/reviewing edits.

If you want more people to help, ask more people to request the reviewer user group. So far it's not been very useful for much yet on en.wikipedia (on and off again proposal-related user-rights, mostly), but if you express a want for help, and let the admins at WP:RFP know. It's simple enough to approve editors who meet the requirements for the right.

Incidentally, was there a reason why reviewer was not given Feature/Resolve feedback (aftv5-feature-feedback), but rollbacker (and autoconfirmed) was? Honestly, I'm not sure what this user-right does, even after re-reading the poll.) - jc37 16:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Good points on all fronts :). Bear in mind, though, that launch is in 1-2 weeks, tops (which is why I was bringing this up now). Even if we ask users to go apply for reviewer or whatnot, it's unlikely to make up the numbers in time. Having said that, I guess practically speaking any RfC will last until several weeks after the release (30 days is standard), so really that's moot.

On the "feature" front, that's automatically inherited from autoconfirmed (I think). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess we better get started : )

And please see Special:ListGroupRights for what I was talking about. - jc37 17:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to chime in here as well. If the community wants Rollbackers to view this kind of content so be it. I however see that Rollbackers shouldn't. Although the same basic level of trust is required to qualify for the bits, the specific trust for the bits are different. For a Rollbacker, you have to demonstrate that you know what vandalism and know when to label it as such when reverting it. You have to demonstrate that you abuse the rollback tool by using it to edit war. For a reviewer, you have to demonstrate much more. You have to demonstrate that you know what WP:NPOV and WP:COI is. You have to be able to demonstrate that you know what edits are necessary or not. Your have to demonstrate that you will allow any necessary edit to go through in a PC protected even if you are in disagreement with it. You have to demonstrate that you won't abuse the tool by disallowing necessary edits or by making destructive edits straight through the protection. That is what I believe.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 18:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhm; we're not proposing to give rollbackers the reviewer right. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposal would be an entirely new right dedicated to that, but the AFTV5 stuff would go on the admin bit. ⇒TAP 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, COI and much more need to be understood by everyone who's written a few FA/GAs, so why not automatically give it to all FA/GA authors, whether or not it's a new right or bundled with rollback? There's a very insidious trend appearing here, that only administrators understand these things properly, when nothing could be further from the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, to address both; TAP, creating a brand-new userright would be adding further layer upon (many) layers. The tool allows users to request oversight automatically, and hide and unhide inappropriate feedback - that's it. These things are very clearly analogous to what reviewers and rollbackers are already trusted to do - assess "is this good content y/n, if n, then don't include". I don't believe as an editor that some new userright is required; the skillset needed to use these tools is that that we already expect from rollbackers and reviewers - and the RfC agreed they saw no problem with this. So, why not bundle them?

Malleus, I'm not seeing how understanding NPOV or COI has any relevance to the right we're discussing. Talking about bundling reviewer into something else is a different discussion altogether :). This tool is solely for feedback, and any autoconfirmed user will be able to both feature feedback (bringing it to the attention of article writers) and mark it as resolved if the content is useful and has been incorporated. Writers are covered. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that it did, that was what Cyberpower678 suggested, and I was responding to that. FWIW I don't have either rollback or reviewer rights, so I don't have a dog in this race. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha; sorry, misunderstood *headdesk*. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My dog was disqualified from the race in April. ⇒TAP 19:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the background, but that's a strange-looking user rights log. As a general point, I've always found it rather difficult to understand why anyone would apply for a right that allocates more work without any additional authority, but then what do I know. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that admin's stopped granting the reviewer right with the end of the pending-changes trial, so bundling it with reviewer would not necessarily mean that appropriate users would automatically get the right.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Does reviewer even currently do anything? ⇒TAP 19:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, lets you display a little symbol in the corner of your userpage. Also, it may in the event that the pending changes RfC (currently ended at ~70% approval) ever passes.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have made a couple of minor modifications to the MediaWiki message which appears upon successfully renaming someone. After doing so, there's no need to type that you have done it when editing WP:CHUS - just copy and paste the message. If one only types "D" in the edit summary on each request, then doing that after CTRL + V the message, it means that a rename request can be dealt with from start to finish in just three keystrokes. I have "test-driven" this with a few renames, and it dramatically expedites the process. WilliamH (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm being thick here. When would I want to copy/paste this message? --Dweller (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

When you have successfully renamed one. There's no need to type :{{done}}. ~~~~, you can just copy and paste it. I notice that some crats copy and paste the "user $1 has been renamed to $2" message; I've amended that message so it includes the done template and their signature. That way, they don't have to type a thing. WilliamH (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The version I see doesn't look anything like that Mediawiki page. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the message is formatted in a green box. But that MediaWiki page is the core text which is displayed. WilliamH (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried copying and pasting the message in the green box and didn't get the "done" or the tildes. Again, this could be me being thick. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Weird. It worked for me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried this in IE 7.0 and Firefox 11.0 and can't see any "done" or tildes in either. --Dweller (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Which skin are you using? I wonder if it has anything to do with that... WilliamH (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Vector. Roger, Roger. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Roger, roger, and I'm not using monobook, I'm using vector, victor. WilliamH (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely you're not using Vector, Roger? -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop calling me Shirley. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I had the fish. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that we've determined the problem is the skin Dweller's using, I just wanted to let you know: good luck, we're all counting on you. WilliamH (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know: good luck, we're all counting on you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I can get Clarence that I need to switch to monobooks, Over? --Dweller (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know: good luck, we're all counting on you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking. Bencherlite^Talk 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines. WilliamH (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I picked the wrong week to go back to editing Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

Looks like I picked the wrong week to run for bureaucratship (smile - Oh and wb bishonen : ) - jc37 02:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic, I switched to Monobook skin, and, on a different computer (running Firefox 13.0) the green box still gives no done and no tildes. --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Crats other than William and Nihonjoe, is it working for you? --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. WJBscribe (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrats but do you have the default "en - English" as language at Special:Preferences? Like in most other cases, en-GB and en-CA have not been adapted, and those languages are not recommended for this reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm set to en-GB. I'll try changing it. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WONDERFUL, problem sorted, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this thread, and wish to say - in my official capacity - that you're all insane. Oh, and stewardess? I speak jive. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is to notify you that I've proceed to grant User:Rob Schnautz (WMF) Education Programm Staff rights per his request at Meta. There's no local user that can grant this right locally (except Jimbo, which can edit all user rights). The request was endorsed by an English Wikipedia administrator. As the request was done to do his job I granted it.

I expect there's no problem about it but if it is, I assume full responsability. Please let me know or other stewards at meta:Steward requests/Permissions.

Best regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of these rights? What do they enable the user to do? Out of curiosity, how does they differ from 'Education Program Admin', 'Education Program Campus Ambassador', 'Education Program Instructor' and 'Education Program Online Ambassador' rights - all of which I see have appeared at Special:ListUsers. WJBscribe (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll poke Rob and ask him to explain :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Special:ListGroupRights#epstaff for a list of attached rights. Best regards. MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Will, the list of associated rights can be found at Special:ListGroupRights. There does seem to be a bit of overlap, though. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ollie; sorry all to take so long to respond. Marco's link should clear up all the questions asked. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't, really. It would help if the associated link, Wikipedia:Education program staff, was not a redlink and instead directed you somewhere useful. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(Not a bureaucrat) Looking at the rights conferred by this permission (which all relate to the education program, whatever that is), my own view is that Marco's action is acceptable. Thanks to him for his courtesy note here. However, the documentation surrounding these permissions certainly needs to be sorted out. AGK [•] 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I did first check whether the rights could be granted locally, which couldn't. After that I checked if the permissions attached to the group will be given access to "private" things which after some research does not seem the case. As such and given that it was a request from a staff member for his staff job, given past precedents I proceed to grant the rights. Some time later I approached User:Philippe (WMF) at IRC which told me there was, in his views, no problem with the rights granting. For courtesy, I did logged this here. Regards. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(Not a crat but the admin who endorsed the request) I endorsed this request because, as has previously been stated, it's needed for Rob's work as part of the Education Program. There is going to be an office hour tomorrow from 16:00 to 17:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. I invite everyone to attend to learn more about what this extension will be used for, it has been up on a test wiki for a few months now, <http://education.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page>. The education programs that I imagine this will be used for are Wikipedia:United States Education Program and Wikipedia:Canada Education Program. I'll also point out that Rob's request for these rights to be public so that people would know that he was getting them, something that not all staffers do, presumably to avoid questions that will be answered in due course. :-) The Helpful One 22:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding the purpose of these tools, how they'll affect the project, what effects they will have on articles or other areas, why they're so granular and there are so many of them, which ones are granted to WMF staff only and which to volunteers, what they actually do (fancy little codes don't help me), and why it was decided that the creation of a whole new user rights hierarchy without consultation with the community was the appropriate thing to do. And all the IRC office hours in the world are of no use to me when they're all held during my business hours. Risker (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this per se, although stewards do need to remember individual en-wiki admins don't have particular authority relative to userrights requests in general, but I did have some questions and concerns:

• See Education Program enrollment tokens (ep-token) - What is in the token? Does it disclose privacy-related information or other sorts of user information?

• Remove reviewers from articles (ep-remreviewer) - Is this the Reviewer associated with Wikipedia:Reviewing?

• Remove students from courses (ep-remstudent) - I see any user can add themselves to a course as a student, but only certain program members can remove students. Why aren't admins included as I could see vandals targeting this as an attack vector to flood courses.

• How are we supposed to handle complaints regarding the addition or removal of individuals as ambassadors or students? If someone goes crazy and starts bulk deleting articles or dissasociating articles from students, are admins supposed to block them?

• I played around with it very briefly and see it can be used to create new pages as part of the course. How are we supposed to handle complaints regarding the creation of pages unsuitable for the project?

• I also see that it is possible to add content to the course pages. How are we supposed ot deal with the addition of improper content to course pages, as it does not appear that admins can edit or delete them?

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment regarding authority of admins and RFRs: just to say that the endorsement of the request by THO was not decisive for me to give the flag; although was taken into count as informative. The request came by a staff member asking for those rights for doing his job which is the point. As you know we grant the [local|global]-rights staff people ask for. The request was logged at meta by the @WMF account itself. Best regards. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, MarcoAurelio, I don't think anyone is really concerned about the actions you took as a steward. We're a bit more concerned about the development of an entire user rights hierarchy outside of the control of the project, but it would probably not be the place of a steward to put a WMF staff member's feet to the fire over this. Risker (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear then. I agree WMF-accounts and staff-requests always should be listened to and rarely, if ever, declined. It's en.wiki's responsibility to handle any issues with it, as Risker describes, and you were just doing your job. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, let me stand in support of your action here, Marco - I'll defend it to the brink. You did exactly right. Any structural issues with the extension or the deployment aside, you did exactly what you're supposed to do. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I echo Risker's comments. I find it disturbing that there's now someone with a user right when I a) have no knowledge of what that user right is capable of doing, and b) seem to have no way to find out why it exists. People should not have user rights where a page that details what they can and cannot do is not readily accessible to explain it to people, regardless of whether they're a WMF employee or not. See the office actions page, for example; it's something we have no control over, but at least we know what it is. I still have no idea what this new user right is. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Deskana, I agree with that as well. I have a meeting with them tomorrow afternoon and will report back here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Echoing everyone else, also notifying people that there are four new namespaces: "Course" and "Institution", and their respective talk pages. WilliamH (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The user access levels introduced with the new mw:Education Program extension do not grant access to any already-existing permissions; all the permissions granted by these user access levels relate directly to the management of course pages and institution pages for the Wikipedia Education Program. These new namespaces serve as public records of what institutions and courses are in the program, and they help keep all our student activity as transparent as possible. As TheHelpfulOne indicated, we're holding office hours in 25 minutes at #wikimedia-office ^connect and would be happy to talk about this. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Following up

Hi everyone, I met with LiAnna and Frank from the education program yesterday, and got more of an understanding of what the rights are, and we came up with some solutions, I think. First, as Rob says above, none of the rights assign any extant functionality. Nor do any of them trigger our identification or non-public data rules. There were a couple of changes that I requested that they make: first, I prefer not to have staff involved in the daily management of the rights (ie, adding or removing them), for accountability and logging reasons. In order to avoid adding work to you guys, they suggested that their online ambassadors set up and assign these classroom based rights. I think that's logical, so I'll assign the initial group of ambassadors their rights and then staff will bow out of the rights-granting business. Next, for the new namespaces, editing is restricted to people who are instructors or ambassadors. I've asked that they also open editing up to oversighters, and they agreed to.

The only remaining issue was the socialization of this: it was sub-optimal, obviously. I'm hopeful that we can keep that from happening again.

Best wishes, and sorry about all the confusion. I'm open to questions. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why WMF staff should deverse special rights unless WMF has a special editorial control of Wikipedia.

Is there any other organisation that benefits from this ?

How many people from WMF have these rights ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia:Education program staff still a red link? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent points. WilliamH (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to jump in on the first point here and say that we've had staff-specific rights for a long time; the "staff" right, for example :). In all cases it's to administer programs that are directly WMF-controlled - so, the "staff" right is mainly used by the legal department, for example - and the education right in question is to administer the global education program, or those elements of it hosted on enwiki. I don't think anyone is saying that the rights grant special editorial control, and indeed they don't; if you look at the userright in question, it has no relation to content, and doesn't allow the user to write articles any more efficiently, alter articles any more efficiently, or dictate who can or cannot write/alter articles. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oliver (Keyes) is exactly right. These rights do not convey any authority over content, they are coordinative rights. They are used to do things related to the administration of the program. He's also correct that there has been a staff global group for some time, which ALSO carries no authoritative content rights. Arguably, the only content relationship b/w the WMF and the project is the existance of the office actions policy, which is heavily restricted as to usage. As to why WP:Education program staff is still a red link, I don't know. But I'll find out. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any other organisation that has special rights on wikipedia ?

You say that "[i]n all cases it's to administer programs that are directly WMF-controlled"

So WMF "controls" and "administers" programs on wikipedia. As controller [sic] and administrator [sic], WMF takes the full responsibility of the results of these programs and therefore, among other things, the content.

These special rights gave you some responsilities. You cannot get these rights and reject the responsibilites.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid we have to disagree. One can administer programs without taking responsibility for the content generated within them - that responsibility (per the Terms of Use and most copyright law) remains with the person generating the content. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point, Philippe. The administrator and even more the controller of anything have the responsibility of what happens with the engine, software, website, ... that they administrate (design) and control. Look eg the cigarette manufacturers. They are not responsible of the fact that some people smoke but given they didn't take the highest care to prevent problems with cigarette, they were condemned. That is the same here : if some WMF people want to control and administer wikipedia, they have the responsibility of what happens in their area. The fact that other people (content editors) participate to the trouble doesn't mean they can claim not to be responsible. No special right should be given to anybody.

I conclude that there is no other organisation around the world that benefits from particular rights. The fact that WMF people could benefit from this shows a particular link between WMF and wikipedia. But in practice, that is obvious in any way.

As Risker here below, I don't want to be the 'guinea pig'. All this harms the projects (and weaken WMF position). Pluto2012 (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We've got four new namespaces which are completely uneditable by anyone who isn't in rights groups that can be assigned only by WMF staff, or Stewards under their instruction. How is that anything else but community-exempt editorial control? WilliamH (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Because they're not editorial (content) namespaces. You can't exercise editorial control when there's no content that's editorial there. And the whole point of what I said above is that staff will not be assigning those rights - volunteers will. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic, and I know not a 'crat matter, but this is the thread on these new namespaces... but before creating namespaces, someone should have checked to see if it breaks any articles. So, can someone, somehow, put this article back in article space? Thanks. Courcelles 01:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a pretty terrible side effect, wasn't it? I've just pinged the team that was working on this and asked them to fix this namespace conflict. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that this should all be rolled back until it is properly explained to the community and properly tested to ensure that no adverse effects are happening to the project. It's all well and good to call these "staff rights", but they aren't: most of them are intended to be handed out to individuals who are not WMF staff. Ambassadors aren't staff, nor are the professors for the courses. This is a major change for the project, yet the project itself has not been consulted. Perhaps this experiment could take place on another project that has links to the Education Program? It's tiresome to always have to be the guinea pig. Risker (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's important to note that only one segment of the rights - the EP Staff usergroup - can be called staff rights - and that's legitimate, since it's only assigned to staff. The other usergroups are not staff rights, and haven't been intended to be used that way. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

They're not staff rights, but they are locally-granted rights over which the community has no control. The community can't decide "we don't want person X to be an Education Program Admin on en-wiki" and remove the right or have the right removed. If this was being done at a global groups level, I suspect some of the feeling of imposition by the WMF would be lessened. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why can't the community decide that? If they're being granted by community members, I think the power ultimately rests with the community. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Erm, because the community does not select ambassadors? or professors? or select which courses will be participating? And why does this have its own namespace? Seriously, the community usually is very deliberative about the use of namespaces. And more importantly, why are you the one discussing this with the community, when the Wikipedia Education Program has four or five times more staff than yours does? Risker (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

<grin> Because it's such fun? </grin> Seriously, though, I'll request that Frank weigh in here as well. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a lot has happened here since Friday-- apologies for all the confusion! I've been busy updating WP:User access levels and WP:Namespaces for you guys, as well as helping see that the Star Trek mishap caused by our extension is corrected (thank you for flagging that!); please let me know if I've missed anything else. As far as permissions, go, here is the format we've used since 2011: These program admins (in the U.S. they are "regional ambassadors") select and manage campus ambassadors. Online ambassadors select one another. Instructors apply to their program administrator to join the program. We'd planned on using this setup onwiki, but we are now awaiting the outcome of this discussion before any permissions are distributed. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that program admins are selected by program staff. However, this bring on a new program admin is infrequent enough that we could easily direct these people to a steward to get the required permission. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The above incident is being mishandled in my opinion. Editors have not commented once on the user editing under the name, but are instead focused on ip edits. The concern was that someone had made edits under the personal name Jessica Darling. It is understandable that the administrators who initially responded thought that the person was referring to the ip edits, and it is possible that the editor was; however, it is clear that User:Jessica Darling was blocked for impersonating Jessica Darling. You can see User talk:Jessica Darling. I believe that User:Jessica Darling should probably be renamed something like User:732rhedfkjsadkf032h3a and User:Jessica Darling should be created with a no-index tag and instructions not to usurp. Are there any thoughts on this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. The user "Jessica Darling" has been renamed to "732rhedfkjsadkf032h3a". MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Should User talk:Jessica Darling be moved without a redirect to User talk:732rhedfkjsadkf032h3a? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and just deleted it. No need to retain. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I resigned my adminship a few days ago; see the "Temporary self-de-sysop" section here. The computer problems that prompted me to resign are now done; please restore the rights. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My administrator flag was removed due to inactivity, I would like it back please. (granted/removed) Thanks. ÷seresin 23:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. ÷seresin 00:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

De nada. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, welcome back ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Guidance was given and request has been resolved. Maxim_(talk) 22:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a situation at ACC with this request, if a 'crat can take a moment and read the requestor's comment and the comments from the team and either give us a ping #wikipedia-en-accounts ^connect or process the request It would be greatly appreciated. If the reviewing 'crat needs tool access just ping an admin in the channel. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but have no idea how to access that tool or IRC. --Dweller (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Click on connect choose a username and enter the captcha. DeltaQuad should be online and some other users too. Regards, mabdul 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to voluntarily submit my admin rights following the decision to desysop inactive users. However, I would like to reserve the right to request admin rights when I return to editing on a more regular basis. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Feel free to re-request them at any time. WilliamH (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this motion, please remove the administrative permissions from User:Carnildo. As an Arbitration Committee clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done regretfully. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Following precedent, should the block be expunged from the block log?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Block expungement is pretty rare (even though I proposed it on the workshop in the original Giano arbitration case six years ago), and in this case, the formerly blocked editor hasn't requested it. I think that the notation that the block was overturned on review from the Arbitration Committee is probably sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would say no, it is an important part of the record of these events. AS it relates to Itsmejudith, that the ArbCom reversed the block within hours is also on the record, and should be taken into account if anyone in the future is pondering her block log. though. Courcelles 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, one of my many, too many in fact, items on my to-do list is to work on an essay, potentially leading to a proposal, regarding how and when expungement should work. It's my belief we can eat our cake and have it too (not lose the record, yet not have it quite so visible). I'm still mulling over issues, but I couldn't pass up a chance on a relevant situation to hear your thoughts. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What would you (ye bureaucrats) think concerning a prospective RfA candidate having a pre-RfA vetting discussion? I know we somewhat have this through Wikipedia:Editor review, but rather than specify what discussion page/process, just in general, would it be disallowed for them to later transclude that pre-RfA discussion to the subsequent RfA's talk page? - jc37 22:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• And the details are outlined in this proposal. Input would be appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  (Nod, though it occurred to me that it might be equally as useful with editor review, or any number of other such processes/discussions.) - jc37 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be asking two things. What we think of pre-vetting and what we think of it being on the talk page.

Pre-vetting already exists, sometimes more formally than other times. To an extent, a nomination is a type of pre-vetting. As a crat I don't mind it, but beware the community, or a chunk of it (sufficient to sink an RfA, perhaps) may see things differently. There was a fair bit of kick-back against the old Admin School, I recall.

On the other question, personally, I'm not averse to most relevant things being placed on RfA talk pages, but perhaps linking might be more appropriate than transcluding, as a transclusion of a mass of stuff might stifle the main use of a talk page - ie discussion of what is on the corresponding page. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So not disallowed, but should take care that it not affect talk page usage? - jc37 04:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it should affect talk page usage. I'm not one to discourage any suggestions for reform but, as to the broader idea, I tend to think that RfA reform is better aimed at RfA participants and their standards/expectations, rather than the candidates. I'm not sure pre-RfA vetting will overcome the problem that candidates are increasingly expected to be able to weild the mop perfectly from day one, rather than be people who have generally shown themselves to be clueful users who will learn sensibly on the job... WJBscribe (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to "test drive" how the OS and CU functions work without the admin flag here, so could someone kindly desysop me for a few hours? Thanks. Courcelles 17:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Have fun. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you loved doing that desysop EVula. ;-) The Helpful One 23:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, be nice! lol

(Though thanks for my chuckle of the day : ) - jc37 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Experiments complete, thanks, guys, can someone flip the switch again. Courcelles 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As this is a rights-related discussion noticeboard — Courcelles, is there anything to report (that can be reported here)? WilliamH (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser generally works, absent the ability to block from within the interface. Oversight has some holes, a page cannot be delete suppressed, which makes handling some situations as an oversighter either exponentially longer than they should otherwise be, or flat-out impossible. I actually thought it would be the other way, that it would be CU that threw the flag, but it wasn't. Courcelles 06:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There's never been an issues with CUs that ain't admins, and several wikis, including major ones have had CUs w/o admin at various points. Oversight without admin on the other hand is really uncommon, if it has ever happened. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Avraham#racism. I for one would be willing to rename the locked vandal for now to, although that won't help with LTA page titles. Anyone else ('crat or not) have any comments or thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a 'Crat, but I was just RevDeling an offensive username and noticed that the associated message recommends reblocking by an Oversighter with hideuser enabled. Would that help? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I can do that too, if necessary, but in this case I think it less helpful as there already exists other pages that reference this vandal by name, and thus suppressing the username may lead to more confusion. All the pages that use the name would have to be changed as well (whether the name is suppressed or changed). -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the rename, either. But that's all we can do for the situation. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MBisanz. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with rename. Not sure here, but perhaps we could find a friendly bot operator interested in changing all the instances of the name on our pages? --Dweller (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No objection to renaming etc, but has the target of the slur requested it? Personally, I'd err on the side of ignoring such things rather than giving them this much attention. WJBscribe (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Per [7], the target has indicated discomfort as to the name. The issue remains that this is a user with about a dozen separate subpages in WP:SPI and in WP:SSP before that dating back to the late naughts. Whilst the username change is simple, changing all the links will be time consuming unless someone has a bot that can be used? -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - The User:Roux - has requested a nudge here and still appears to be requesting his RTV request to be actioned - User_talk:Roux#Enough. - Youreallycan 15:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize hard cases aren't always the best time to change policy, but this is a classic example of someone leaving in a fit of pique. Without opining on the merits of said pique, this is not the careful thought out situation of someone who wants to permanently leave, or an emergency situation of someone using their real name which needs immediate protection. Other than emergencies, we ought to find a way to temporarily suspend someone, and after a suitable time period, say, a year, act on the request if still desired. We are being asked to use a process for a situation to which it almost certainly does not apply.SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you there. He is clearly upset, perhaps as his user and talkpage are now locked we can give him a few days to cool down and get verification from him via email that he then still wants to vanish and can action it for him then. - Right to vanish is just that - we all have it and it helps a user to let go and waiting a year wouldn't help anyone - at least if your in good standing its an option. As I have historically seen such requests are acted on sympathetically even in cases involving users not in good standing. Youreallycan 15:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, are you saying the roux is piquant? By the way, I have courtesy-blanked roux's talkpage and full-protected it indef, as the editor wishes no further contact, and is unable to reset some of their preferences (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Related (and perhaps required) reading: meatball:GoodBye. -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

nb: his last IP post referred to getting email notifications of the talk activity. This means he can use password reset to get the account back. Give him some time, space, and a link to Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)