Resolved

I should be grateful if my Oversight and Administration privileges, and any others extending from granting of same, would be removed promptly (no need to drop everything, I have not and am not planning to do anything with them). I would be further grateful that confirmation is provided to my talkpage, since I still get notification of such updates. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in both capacities. I have removed your admin rights and made a request on meta for a Steward to do the same for oversight. WJBscribe (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the oversight-userright following meta request. Regards. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

best wishes, Mark. Br'er Rabbit (talk) (Jack) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please, could somebody check the Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations page? Some requests are just one step from approval. Thanks --Mates245 (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I please have the admin bit removed from my account? I've found myself using the tools less and less recently, mostly because I have gone back to adding information and writing articles and would prefer to keep it simple like it used to be. Maybe one day I might like the bit back, but for now I'm just going to get on with some writing! Thanks, BigDom 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, restored some of the other bits and pieces that trusted users should always have. Thanks for all your good work, don't be a stranger. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere, just concentrating on writing and adding content since that's always what I've enjoyed most. BigDom 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Just noticed that the next round of inactive administrators were scheduled to be removed on July 10.

• KnowledgeOfSelf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Heah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• JamieS93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• KnightLago (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• PDH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Khendon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Blankfaze (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Regards, — Moe ε 12:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. With some sadness at deminishing admin numbers. WJBscribe (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am user HappyWheeler4Life. I want to recover my password without using my email address, which I did not enter during registration. Can you help? 75.49.219.222 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)IP address (insert ip here)

Officially, no. Is there a user in good standing with whom you have exchanged email in the past? --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Another problem, I don't HAVE an email address. 75.49.219.222 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)IP address (insert ip here)

You own a website, but don't have an email address? Curious. Nonetheless, I have an easy solution. User:HappyWheeler4Life has very few edits to Wikipedia. Please feel free to discard that account and create a new one. I suggest that before you do, you create an email address, in case you forget your password again. You also need to read this article before introducing any more material from your own website into Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I voluntarily gave up my bit. Please re-sysop me. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Chaser, I can see on your user page history that you gave up being an admin but for some reason it's not showing up on the logs I can see. Of course, you're more than welcome back, but perhaps I'm just not seeing the right log info, could you or another 'crat help here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, more research, I guess the logs don't go back to when you were sysoped, per your 2006 RFA... sorry, I was pre-emptive. Can anyone explain the rights log here? Jan 6, 2010 you were an admin and had EFM removed, then on Jul 19, 2011, you went from no privileges to auto patrolled. Not sure I follow that chain of redeployment of rights. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the logs do include the sysopping, under a previous username: [1] (before the rights log moved when users were renamed). WJBscribe (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried the meta rights log? Unfortunately I don't have a link... --Rschen7754 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Meta log. Courcelles 20:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Courcelles, is there a reason why this isn't reflected in the normal Wikpiedia log? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't May 2011 before the crats got the ability to desysop locally, when all of them were on the Meta log? 20:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs)

 Done, welcome back, and thanks for the info. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to go delete the main page now. ;-) --Chaser (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not possible anymore ;-) EngineerFromVega^★ 05:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I please be re-sysopped as well? I've been in the habit of not logging in lately, but I'm still active. --LDC (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear sirs.I have ordered from this website two days ago.My order was a Himalayan Face wash.my order id is 23754089.I have not received my order yet.no one is taking phone there.Please do something quickly as I don't want to lose my money.Thanks.my phone number <redacted>.my name :<redacted>.

Stop forum shopping about matters entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. You have been told repeatedly at the Help Desk that Wikipedia cannot help you with this matter. If you continue it will be considered disruptive and you will be blocked from editing here. Cresix (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia is able to assist you with problems on another website, sorry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting this one here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My Himalayan prefers to wash her own face - no need to purchase any special wash for it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, my username is Cicero in utero. I cannot remember my password, nor can I remember the e-mail account that was associated with my Wikipedia account. I have checked all three of my main e-mail accounts and cannot find the password reminder I requested, leaving me to believe that the e-mail account I had associated with my username was an old Hotmail account I have since deleted. Is there anything I can do? I am really married to my odd handle and don't want to have to change it. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.244.26 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we do not have any way to change your password for you, or access it. Without some sort of means to confirm you are the account owner, we also can't allow you to usurp it. What you could do instead is create a new account called "Cicero in utero II", and leave a note on your (new) userpage stating that you used to be User:Cicero in utero. You'll probably need to request the account at tools:~acc due to the anti-spoofing system; make sure to explain what happened so they don't decline the request. A link here wouldn't hurt. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrats-- this is just a heads up on the Perth arbitration case which is set to close tomorrow. There will be at least one desysop in the decision. Once the decision is formally posted, I'll leave an additional note here on which remedies passed.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am deeply troubled by the proposal to desysop Gnangarra and have posted comments on the proposed decision talkpage to that effect. I hope the Arbs supporting that remedy will reconsider. If they do not, I don't think I could in conscience action a remedy I so strongly disagree with. I urge other bureaucrats who come to consider whether to action that part of the decision to reflect on the fact that we are all volunteers, and none of us are required to do anything. WJBscribe (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a bad decision and I think Arbcom is making a mistake if they desysop Gnangarra. That said, I don't think they have deviated so far from policy (obvious math error, blatant corruption, etc.) that civil disobedience is warranted. I believe I'm neutral to the parties (I haven't looked at the case in detail yet), but assuming I am, I'll reluctantly perform the desysop when the time comes. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's disappointing. In WJBscribe's position I'd also refuse to do the desysop, and I can't understand the motivation of anyone who wouldn't. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the outcome of the case may be changing in part as a result of additional voting. (Not commenting on any other issue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth closed

Pursuant to Remedy 3 of the final decision in the Perth case, User:Kwamikagami is to be desysopped. He may "regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship".

For the Arbitration Committee,
Lord Roem (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I did it. Secretlondon (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to help User:Hanauma on the German wiki to get a unified login, and there's a conflict with an account with the same name in the English wiki, created in 2006 and never used. Is it possible to claim this account? Thanks! --22:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarefo (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Secretlondon (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Renaming is a courtesy granted to users in good standing, and especially given what has happened previously with the vanishing, there is no valid case here for a rename. Per this reasoning, and further comments by other bureaucrats below, this request is denied. Maxim_(talk) 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has made a request to bureaucrats on their talk page regarding the name of their account. They have asked for it to be posted here. You can find further details at User_talk:ScienceApologist#Please_request_this_of_a_bureacrat. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 21:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Steve. I know SA in real life, so I'm recused. But even if I was not recused, I would be inclined not to grant this request for the same reasons EdJohnston expresses on that page. MBisanz ^talk 15:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I unvanished him.) Given his comments that he will continue editing, his request inherently cannot be granted. As EdJohnston says, there are practical reasons to having him unvanished. See, for example, this section. I had to usurp an account by the name of ScienceApologist to ScienceApologist (usurped), because an unused account with that name which was subsequently registered was confusing clerks, making them post totally inaccurate statements at SPI.

ScienceApologist has two options:

• Exercise his right to vanish. His account(s) will be renamed to something obscure, in mutual agreement that he, the individual, will not edit Wikipedia under any account or IP address.
• Continue to evade his block by editing with sockpuppets. In order to assist dealing with the disruption, his account(s) will be reinstated.

It's a simple choice. Labelling it punitive is an attempt to defer his failure in keeping his part of the bargain onto Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Following message copied here by request from User talk:ScienceApologist. JohnCD (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To all the people saying that I cannot change my user name, what if you changed the names of the Sockpuppetry pages to the new name? Would that mollify your concerns? jps (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Based on his comments, he has absolutely no plans to ever stop editing Wikipedia, and he's been extremely disruptive and flagrantly disregarding the rules of the site. So, no, I don't think we'll be granting his request to vanish since he has no plans to honor the rules surrounding that privilege. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for the bot that clerks this page to change the language used below the date headings to "Requests left here will usually not be addressed before [DATE], unless related to SUL unification", which I think reflects how that page is handled. The current wording "on or before" gives users unnecessary expectations as to when the requests might be fulfilled and we generally leave non-SUL requests at least 7 days to give the target enough time to object. There is no need for a longstop date on a page for almost exclusively non-urgent requests. If you disagree, please weigh in at User_talk:AnomieBOT#WP:USURP. WJBscribe (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how or what I did, but I appear to have split one user into two user accounts with this rename. I've filed a request at Bugzilla:38585 to get his account fixed. He only had 31,000 edits, so I figured I'd drop an FYI here if other crats experience a similar problem. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, all looks fine to me? Edinburgh Warrier has 0 edits and all the old contribs seem to have moved to Blethering Scot. WJBscribe (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Apparently he was logged in at the exact moment I renamed it, so it immediately re-created during the time the rename extension was timing out. False alarm. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that it can take a while for the rename to make its way through the database, especially if it involves an account with as many edits as that. Looks fine to me too now. WilliamH (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha MBisanz. Stop trying to break shit. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, would that be because breaking things is bad, or because he's bad at breaking things? Risker (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As demonstrated in this trick, both. It's ok though.. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#RepublicanJacobite_.E2.86.92_TheOldJacobite --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks normal to me. No contribs for RepublicanJacobite - all seems to have moved to TheOldJacobite... WJBscribe (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought, but it's useful to get an outside view, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The bot appears to be satisfied too... WJBscribe (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Was the contribution limit removed? ⇒TAP 15:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've done renames up to 300,000 edits. There's just a fairly high chance of something going wrong over 10,000-50,000 edits. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed a new process involving an extension of the RFA partnership between crats and community, at the other end of the adminship pipeline. If crats think there might be staffing or other problems in its operation, I'd much appreciate comments—perhaps here, at the crats' talk page, or at Wikipedia:Requests_for_Comment/Community_de-adminship_proof_of_concept/Proposals#RTDe_Discussion. Thank you all, and hoping this is the right place to post. Tony (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a more trafficked forum, I wanted to drop a link to a proposed change at Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username#PROPOSAL:_New_category_called_Redirect-only_Usurpation. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: New category called Redirect-only Usurpation

Had I realized this noticeboard existed, I would've posted it here, but nevertheless, please consider my recent proposal calling for a new category of usurp called Redirect-only Usurpation. Thanks.  Guðsþegn —— Thane_{_me}  18:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are already aware of it (see the post directly above yours). Thanks, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Callofduty4

I've been asked to reconsider my rejection of this usurpation request to "Callofduty4" and would appreciate a second opinion. I don't see it as a particularly borderline call per Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names. Having users editing with recognisable names of products is undesirable whether they are connected to that product or not (albeit for different reasons). That said, I'd appreciate others having a look and have no objection to another bureaucrat performing this rename if the consensus is that I imposed too strict an application of the policy. WJBscribe (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Current policy here does not permit it, even if Wikia does. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your interpretation. MBisanz ^talk 11:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, although FWIW that user's current username is probably inappropriate as well, for the same reason. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was something like Callofduty4fan, it would be fine. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The user appears to have adopted the name in their signature nonetheless, [2] although they are linking to their user page, their signature is [[User:CASIO F-91W|callofduty4]] ([[User talk:CASIO F-91W|talk]]). However, they don't edit too frequently and as such, there is probably not a need to make a fuss about it. The Helpful One 11:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The bot is listing that there is one overdue RfB and one overdue RfA, when neither exists. Pakaran 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gave the bot owner a heads up: User talk:TParis#Heads up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's reading 28bytes RfA for some reason. I'm looking into it.--v/r - TP 00:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed--v/r - TP 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I see this one was renamed earlier but still seems to be actively editing. Seems strange? Rjd0060 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have restored their original account name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just looking in and saw this. It may be worth someones time to compile a sub-page somewhere of vanished usernames from requests like the above "Vanished user qwqwijr8hwrkjdnvkanfoh4" and all other vanished users. You could have a bot periodically check to see if a vanished user has made an edit and notify you, instead of having individuals reporting them and others possibly going unnoticed. Regards, — Moe ε 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That would defeat the point of vanishing, and attract more attention to the users vanishing for no good reason. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a list of vanished users, i.e "vanished user 1", "vanished user 2", "vanished user 3", etc., compromises their vanishing status. The suggestion was to have a bot periodically check to see if vanished editors were still editing, which if they are, then attention is probably best drawn to them :) Regards, — Moe ε 06:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the bot could send an email to the 'crat mailing list, that would work to get our attention and not attract attention (and doesn't count as zomg mailing list abuse). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Very possible, User:MadmanBot already does the task of scanning contributions/logs and sending e-mails for Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. It would just be a matter of giving the bot a list of users to scan and an e-mail to send. Regards, — Moe ε 06:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

May I have my bit back? I had forgotten how unsatisfactory RFPP is when you're on the non-admin side of it. I'll unprotect my talk page. Request for -sysop here. User rights log here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is done, sorry for delay. Welcome back! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those were the longest 13 minutes of my life. No wonder everyone is screaming "we need more 'crats!" (Seriously though, thanks!) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

+1, this delay is unacceptable. Wow, I'm impressed you think 13 minutes is a delay The Rambling Man. Keep up the good work! The Helpful One 23:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a couple of renames at WP:CHU... could a kind 'crat check my contribs to make sure I didn't miss any steps? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice anything amiss. The steps for bureaucrat work is listed here, but I'm certain you're already familiar with that reference page. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Both look fine to me. WilliamH (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both, I appreciate the double-checking! 28bytes (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you've been busy! Done some renaming, and now just closed youu first RfA! :D Acalamari 22:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, no sense asking for the bit if I'm not going to put it to use. :) 28bytes (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I please be reinstated to the Cabal? Inactive for a long time, hence the -sysop, now returning to some part time Cambodian article editing and a bit of mopping. It's nice to be back. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, welcome back. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Only ten minutes this time, The Rambling Man, you're getting better. ;) Acalamari 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ta muchly! Damn edit conflict Acalamari! Just what I was going to say! Nine minutes is now the new Olympic standard ;) Paxse (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since Team GB won their first gold today, I feel invigorated and I'm very pleased I beat my personal best. I'd like to thank my trainer, my family.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen records being broken, but this fast...well, I suspect he's sitting on some performance enhancing rug... Is somebody checking all this please? Wifione ^Message 02:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Would that be it? I don't think it enhances performance that much, but it sure enhances the look of a foyer! — Coren ^(talk) 23:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, our 'crats are using performance enhancing rugs? And I looked up to these guys! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to assure everyone that the Arbitration Committee is forming an Anti-Textile Subcommittee to investigate allegations of illicit use of fabrics on Wikipedia. Users wishing to assist should apply directly to the committee after submitting a USD$50 application fee to the Hersfold's New Carpet fund. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

This month's round of inactive administrators are due for desysopping today:

• Borisblue (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Daveydweeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Matt Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Robth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Seb26 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Regards, — Moe ε 09:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Note that despite July's rush of RFAs giving us six new administrators, eight were desyopped in the same month, resulting in a net gain of -2. This year there have been 17 successful RFAs, and 60 desysoppings due to inactivity, resulting in a net loss of 43 administrators to the project. This figure does not include users who have requested the addition or removal of their sysop flag at this noticeboard. WilliamH (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite unfortunate really. The only positive I can gain from that is that, we have more active administrators from the recent RFAs than we did before. We dipped down into the 680s in the number of active administrators and now we are almost back to 700. Regards, — Moe ε 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm seeking feedback for the configuration of user rights on the revised version of the Education Program extension, which we're hopeful can be deployed in the next few weeks. The user rights configuration will be rearranged to avoid a Wikimedia staff role as bottleneck or control point for the user rights. Please take a look at the proposed configuration and give feedback. The nominal plan would be to have bureaucrats control the "Education Program administrator" flag, which would be the main right for controlling other user rights and administrative features within the new "Education Program:" namespace. Thanks!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(As the signature suggests, I'm now working for WMF. I'm essential the community liaison for the education program, so please feel free to bring related issues and frustrations to me. -Sage)

• As I have noted at the linked discussion, I do not believe it is appropriate for the WMF to create namespaces and user rights hierarchies on this project in order to administer its programs, when they have an Outreach wiki that is specific to this very program. Our community has never been given an explanation of why this is being done, and has no control over these new user rights. This sets a horrible precedent for the WMF to create namespaces for its own purposes, which are purely administrative and not related to our project itself. Risker (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to add something very specific here. Bureaucrats are selected by the English Wikipedia community to handle rights requests as approved by the English Wikipedia community, not by the WMF. They do not have that mandate, nor should it be assumed that it is in the best interests of either the community or the WMF to take on such responsibilities. The appointments for "Education Program administrator" will be made by the WMF, not by the community. Risker (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not appropriate whatsoever. We have never been given an explanation of why this is being done, and once such a flag is handed down, we have no stake in what goes on in a new project space, one which we can't edit, and one for which there is no consensus anyway. As Risker says, bureaucrats enact only decisions made by the community. I will take any bureaucrat who uses their community-bound position to enact rights which do not have community endorsement - thus constituting an enormous infringement of the community's rights - straight to the Arbitration Committee, and they should lose their bit straight away, no questions asked. WilliamH (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Aye, and I thought we'd already discussed this. (Ok, it was actually a kerfuffle relating to granting a staff member these rights (linky), but wasn't actually a discussion along these lines). Bureaucrats are elected primarily due to their ability to interpret community consensus; they won't flip an admin bit unless the community agrees that it should be flipped, and they don't grant a bot flag unless the community and BAG agree that it's appropriate to do so. Unless there is a consensus amongst the community to allow the WMF to go over their heads in granting these rights, I agree with William - any bureaucrat granting these rights is abusing their ability to do so. As it is, I don't see that there is much support at all amongst the community for the program as it's being proposed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. If the "education program" staff cannot find the time to manage a right that might be needed once in a month or two, then they should let "education program admins" themselves assign the status. This is not within Bureaucrats' remit (giving permissions when the community has a consensus to do so). I personally support people using Wikipedia for course projects, etc, that benefit the broader world rather than being collected for grading, handed back and thrown in the recycling bin. However, I do not see the benefit in this formalized education program; I know one current Wikipedia sysop who very successfully ran a class without any of its features. -- Pakaran 18:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it's possible, especially for very experienced Wikipedians, to run successful Wikipedia course assignments without any involvement with a formalized education program. For those who don't want to use it, nothing will change. But there are also a lot of classes that really need some formal structure to help them run a successful Wikipedia assignment. The point of this extension is to reduce the organizational workload of Wikipedians trying to help with or keep an eye on (or when things go badly, clean up after) those classes.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns and sentiments expressed so far. It seems very strange that the WMF is making and running a namespace which we can't even see (as far as I know), and then wanting us to grant rights specific to that namespace without specific support from the community for the namespace to even exist, let alone have exclusive userrights useful to only that namespace. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea here is that the community can and should be involved in this namespace. Rather than having some sort of WMF staff role built into the system, bureaucrats would be given technical control of the 'education program organizer' flag (not 'admin', to avoid confusion about the other admin role) and assign it based on community consensus. The sort of de facto inherited consensus is the current way the education program roles are organized for the United States and Canada education programs: there are recognized Regional Ambassadors, as well as a small number of Wikimedia Foundation staff, who've been doing things like welcoming new classes and ambassadors into the Wikipedia Education Program. (If accepting that de facto consensus as a starting point isn't acceptable, I guess we could do an RfC to establish explicit consensus for flipping the switch initially.) I expect a better, more traditional consensus-based system for assigning the organizer flag could be implemented for later additions and subtractions to the organizer group.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the point. There is no community consensus for the actual existence of the flag. We are not going to give out flags whose very existence is not supported by the community. WilliamH (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Establishing consensus for the existence of the flag is what I hope will come out of the discussion I linked to start with.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess the main problem is this, then. Rather than proposing the idea and allowing the community to provide input, the Foundation has simply said "this is how things will be run, now give us support for it." It's backwards to how things are normally done on Wikipedia, and frankly the Foundation, of all people, should understand that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's especially disconcerting when we are told (paraphrasing) "here's the RfC to get community consensus, but we're starting it in 10 days regardless". This is one of those cases where it's not better to ask forgiveness. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite. WilliamH (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Alas. We're in a tough place. I wish I could go back a few months and start the discussion off right, since now we're coming up quickly to the start of the new term. But please keep in mind that the new extension will be a key aid to the community members and newcomers working on the education project, and will have almost no effect for those who aren't involved with it — except to make it easier to see what's going on with the classes. The ambassadors and professors have been asking for a better way to set up course pages and track students since the beginning of the education program, and in that sense there is a long-standing consensus that this is wanted. I'll say in a personal capacity that I think it's really, really important to make the education program into more fully a community project.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic but don't see how this can be sorted by the 10th if you want the involvement of this project's bureaucrats. As others have rightly said, we will not grant new user rights without a community consensus to do so. Such a consensus cannot be demonstrated overnight. It would take a widely advertised discussion open for several weeks before that could be demonstrated. Clearly there isn't time for that. I suggest the implementation be delayed until a consensus can be found - no doubt tweaks (such as the renaming of the admin right to organiser) - will continue to be made. Perhaps the program can be hosted elsewhere in the meantime and launched next academic term/year here if support is established. Otherwise, of course WMF has the ability to put this program into effect without our participation and without this wiki's demonstrated support. I think that sets a poor precedent and will probably make establishing consensus for the namespace/rights difficult, but I guess it's an option. WJBscribe (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That lines up with my current view of the situation. I'll be talking with the WMF team to figure out which next step we'll take. Trying to run the extension from a different wiki would negate much of the benefit when it comes to making it easier for the community to see what's going on in these classes and intervene when necessary. My guess is that also would require some serious recoding since it focused on students making edits to the same wiki.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I will add my voice to the chorus that our primary charge, as bureaucrats, are charged with implementing community consensus, and doing our best to uncover what it is, if it exists, in cases of difficulty. Name changes and bot rights, similarly, are implementation of long-standing project membership approved processes. In this case, the status quo aligns with the clear consensus of members, admins, bureaucrats, and members of Arbcom alike that the creation of the above namespaces is not something that should be implemented without community backing. As such, acting as a bureaucrat to implement this would be a violation of the trust given to us. Of course, this entire project is subject to Foundation fiat, and if they were to threaten to "revoke EnWiki's charter" as it were without acquiescence and offer this project the choice "create the namespaces, or we pull the plug on y'all," there is not much we could do as a community, other than vote with our feet (or fingertips). However, that we have even reached this state saddens me as it indicates that there exists such a gap between the foundation and the membership and governance (Arbcom) of its largest project that this decision was made without consultation and buy-in. If the Foundation is changing the flavor of the Wikimedia project to turn it into "Wikiversity plus," I am afraid that would be a big mistake. I understand that working on a fork or different project is not as ideal; then again, so is alienating the highly-invested users who donate enormous amounts of their precious time to ensure that this project continues as smoothly as it can (which isn't that smooth, I grant, but it could be much worse). -- Avi (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

community backing

Thanks, everyone who's given input here. Just to reassure people before anyone gets too depressed over the state of community-foundation relations: we're not going to turn this extension on without the approval of the community. I'll be talking things over to figure out how exactly to go forward, but it looks provisionally like we'll push back the timeline, start a more structured and on-topic RfC to figure out whether the community wants this extension and how to configure the rights for it, and then (hopefully) deploy it with plenty of time to play with it, give feedback, and make improvements that the community wants before using it systematically at the start of the following (January 2013) term. That's kind of shooting from the hip, but I think that's the general shape of things.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sage, thank you for telling us this. At the same time, you've persuaded me (at least) that there is a benefit to everyone (including the English Wikipedia community) in improving the administrative processes for the Education Program. Just as a suggestion: the program should give serious consideration to installing this extension on the Outlook wiki for the coming term, with the understanding that it is installed there as a trial and opportunity to debug, while also showcasing its features — kind of a proof of concept. The community tends to be much more easily persuaded of the value of change when they can visualize what the change is likely to be. Even though I recognize it is not a perfect solution for *anyone, it would be a useful first step. Right now the community can't even see what the extension looks like or what it does, and setting it up on a WMFLABS wiki isn't particularly easy for testing due to that project's design and non-standard privacy management. Risker (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I have been inactive for some time, but plan to resume editing and such admin functions as NPP on at least an occasional basis. My admin bit was unset for inactivity, not for any other prolem. Please restore same. DES ^(talk) 19:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Granted, welcome back. WilliamH (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Hello DES, can you point me to where you were de-sysopped for inactivity? Your user rights log (as far as I can see) only contains a +sysop back in 2005. Not wishing to be difficult but I'd like to run with due diligence if you don't mind before I re-sysop your account. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oops, too late. Perhaps, even in retrospect of your re-sysop, you can honour my request DES? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see the global rights log, it's all good, and I'm not on any performance enhancing rugs, honest guv. WilliamH (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) in this edit I was notified of rights removal and pointed to this page to ask that they be restored. I didn't actually try to check the log to determine if the notification was accurate. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

To you both, all good, all good. My apologies for my caution. Keep calm, carry on, no rugs to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a link to the global rights log on MediaWiki:Userrights-groups-help so it's easier to chase up the papertrail for admins who were desysopped due to inactivity before such actions were done locally. :) WilliamH (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you get an A+ for that, new boy! Cheers dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There may be a better way to show the rights logs, but the wikitext {{userrights|Example}} will expand into a set of links to all the logs. For instance, Example (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. I've updated Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Changing username. Please join in. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – No bureaucrat action required. --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would appreciate it if a bureaucrat could take a look at Diff of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko 2 (currently, support #7) and determine whether action needs to be taken with regards to the user's signature. NW (Talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Seek drama, much? First Risker, now here? And you didn't even reply to me on your talk... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited your signature in the interest of improving readability, and the ability of others to follow the discussion. It really does distract from reading your, and others', !votes. Pakaran 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth I didn't mind and found it rather funny actually. Personally there are a lot more negative things in my RFA than that signature. Just my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. For what it's worth, I didn't mean to indent the !vote and know of no reason it should not be counted normally. I made a typo, which I fixed a few minutes later. Honestly, I thought the signature was relatively cool-looking myself, but it makes it hard to read smoothly and takes up room on the screen. I notice that he put back in a "cute", but more textual, sig, and I have no problem with that (I used one myself with an anagram of my username many years ago, and might toy with it again at some point). Pakaran 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't indent it, I did (and it's now undented;). Your typo was only about fixing the numbering. The "Br'er Rabbi" was NW's silly goof. Not as silly as kicking up shite over this, but it serves to clarify who the clue-challenged (still) are. As I see it, you had little choice, as teh rule-mongers are technically right albeit foolish. NW and Risker have been suitably {{minnow}}ed and a lot of people got a good laugh out of this. You might care to review some of the threads on my talk where this sort of game has been tried before. Told those arbs, too.

Street-Legal Sockpuppet
 Br'erRabbit 
06:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC) oops ;)

nb:

• my sig in prefs is /blank/ (i.e. default)
• the 'banner' is done with borders. Figure *that one* out.
• Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any action here requiring the input of a bureaucrat. Closing this. --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – discussion concluded

I opened a discussion regarding the consensus in this RfA. Could fellow crats please stop by? I should probably note that I'm working this evening from 4 to 9:30 Eastern, so I won't be back until late evening. Pakaran 18:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I also support the no consensus view. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Handled eslewhere. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion, which was intended for WP:BN . GiantBluePanda (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on AN has gone nowhere in particular, and GiantBluePanda has been blocked as a serial disrupter of the RfA process. Recommend closing this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – denial of usurpation was correct, and will not be overturned

Dear bureaucrats,

I would like a second opinion concerning a usurpation request i made for the username Ndiver. It started by a question concerning the Single Unified Account (see here ), where on the suggestion of Ruslik, i made a usurpation request ( HERE ).

It's true that owner of the username Ndiver wrote that he would like to keep his username (see User_talk:Ndiver#Request_for_usurpation ), which explains why 28bytes refused the usurpation (but he told me that i could ask a second opinion: User_talk:28bytes ) , however i would like to notice several points that justify this usurpation request:

1) When he was noticed of the usurpation request, Ndiver immediately answered. It was his first contribution on Wikipedia since 2010 (see Special:Contributions/Ndiver ). Since that, i tried to contact him on his Talk page (User_talk:Ndiver#Request_for_usurpation) without any success. Hillcrest98 gave a third-party opinion on the same page, without any answer from Ndiver.

2) On my side, i created the username ndiver on Wikipedia FR 2 years before somebody created it on Wikipedia EN.

3) Since i created the username Ndiver, i try to contribute times to times on Wikipedia FR and Wikispecies under this username. As example, I started to update the list of the Sesarmid crabs (see Sesarmidae ). Due to some limitations in Wikispecies, I would like to bring some extra (sourced) informations on Wikipedia EN due to my knowledge in zoology (I'm doing a doctorate degree in such topic). However, each time that i have so switch between Wikipedia FR or Wikispecies and Wikipedia EN, i have some conflicts between the usernames, and it would be definitively easier with a Single Unified Account (under the username Ndiver).

As the user Ndiver appears to be inactive since already 2 years and that we don't have any reason to think that he would become active soon, the usurpation request seems legitimate, even more when we know that I would expect to use this username in the near-future.

Best regards, --Ndiverprime (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 28bytes. As the current holder of the username objects, we can not grant the request. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a followup to the previous discussion here, note that I've just opened a request for comment on whether to enable, and how to configure, the Education Program extension.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Dear 'crats. I seem to be back, and ready to return to work. I have a SHA 512 commitment on my user page. I can provide the key at a time mutually agreeable or can email it if that is better. I've been told a checkuser may be in order. Dlohcierekim (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Thanks, Dlohcierekim 21:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yay, another Pedro Cabal OG returns. FYI, in order to get your mop back, you may be required to modify your signature (depending on which 'crat acts on your request). Welcome back. Floq :  enbeam  22:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. didn't know we were remembered. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, hey. Long time no see, and welcome back : ) - jc37 22:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's great to see an old name return. :) Welcome back! Acalamari 22:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to be seen, and to see so many familiar folks from back then. Dlohcierekim 22:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. But I object to Dlohcierekim's being re-granted adminship unless he first tells us how to pronounce his username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done I'm :  Max  22:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so awesomely much !cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back; but I still do not know how to pronounce the name. Lectonar (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Read it backward <grin> Dlohcierekim 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, toss it into an anagram website.  :) —64.85.217.208 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that I saw ;). I want to know how to pronounce it, not what it means. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copied from the Wikimedia Announcement mailing list with modifications to links, because this proposed program would apply to all administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators, OTRS volunteers. Risker (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Many Wikimedians take on key support roles that help ensure that the community’s projects run smoothly and effectively. The Wikimedia Foundation -- under the lead of the Finance Department and the Legal and Community Advocacy Department -- is proposing the Legal Fees Assistance Program. This program is intended to help find qualified lawyers or pay for the legal defense fees of eligible users in specified support roles. The assistance would be available in the unlikely event those users were ever named in a legal complaint as a defendant because of their support roles on any Wikimedia project. The program would apply to all projects and languages.

We have started a request for comment to see what the community thinks of this proposed initiative, and we would like those who are interested to look at the proposed program itself and let us know your thoughts. If you have further questions, we have prepared an FAQ, and we will be available to discuss via the talk pages.

Many thanks,

Geoff
wmf:User:Gbrigham

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Garfield
wmf:User:Gbyrd

Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation

Please let me encourage those of you with an interest in this program (whether seeing it implemented or killing it dead) to participate in the RFC. :) Whether or not this is presented to the Board for consideration will depend on strong community consensus. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I wanted to express my disappointment to see that the bureaucrates prefer to support a 2-years inactive user that do not justify why he should keep his username (created 2 years after i created the same on Wikipedia FR, just to remember it) and who does not answer to mediation issues than an active user that has something to add to the encyclopaedia. It's also for me a surprising decision when I consider the leak of volunteers of Wikipedia (see: Daily Telegraph - Wikipedia looking for more volunteers ).

At the current point, my login conflicts between the usernames Ndiver on Wikipedia FR + Wikispecies and the username Ndiverprime on Wikipedia EN (that oblige me to disconnect my username each time i switch between the 2 languages) unfortunately do not allow me to contribute actively on Wikipedia EN.

Best regards, --Ndiverprime (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) Ndiverprime, I think the spirit of the usurption policy is pretty clear that any objection from the owner of the username is grounds for the usurption not to go through. It's not a question of who is more entitled to a username. Rather, the point is that Wikipedia doesn't want to usurp a username if there's even a remote chance that editor might try to login someday only to find that they've lost their username! It would most likely discourage that editor from making contributions, which is not what Wikipedia wants. If a user got the e-mail about the usurption and took the time to login and object to it, then it seems like that's enough to show they're still somewhat interested in contributing to Wikipedia in the future. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 05:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ndiverprime, it's clear that you're disappointed by this decision, and I can understand that, but if an editor wants to assert their right to keep their username, albeit not having made made edits, that's the way it goes. You could always consider changing your SUL to something unique so that you could log into all Wikipedia projects with a common user name. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

At the current point, it makes several days that i tried to contact the user Ndiver (to try a mediation or at least to understand why he wants to keep his username on Wikipedia), first by writing on his Talk page, then by email as i found how to do. I don't have any answer from this user up to now. That's why I say that I'm disgusted to see that Wikipedia supports inactive users than motivated users. Just reconsider what i said: Wikipedia has already a leak of volunteers ... This type of situation just motivates other ones to leave the boat ... At the current point, I don't have the motivation to contribute any more. I asked for justified help, the bureaucratic logic refuse ...

Additionally, I still have these annoying problems of SUL :(

@ The Ramblingman: I'm using actively the username Ndiver since far before I created an account on Wikipedia (since something like 15 years if i'm right). I still use it as username everyday on several websites ;-) --Ndiverprime (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nidver, I think it worth pointing out that this rename lies outside what the enwiki community has authorised its bureaucrats to do. It simply isn't within our gift. Had the user never made any edits to articles, I would rename them without hesitation, but they have and that limits our discretion. If you would like to propose a change to the policy and gain consensus for that change from the community, you are welcome to do so. But until a policy change is agreed, we cannot help you. WJBscribe (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I second WJB's view. Sorry, but that's the way things are right now. --Dweller (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes 21 days that the user Ndiver did not answered to any trial I made to contact him (Talk page, email) ... If at least the bureaucrats could make the same. I continue to say that this user is inactive and is thus usurping my username Ndiver (that i use on Wikipedia FR and Wikispecies). Should i do a new usurpation request to show it ? On my side, I wanted to create the page about Pachygrapsus transversus, a really interesting crab species, but I'm really hesitating to do it ... As I said, why taking some time to do it when the Wikipedia bureaucracy doesn't help me when i ask it for a justified reason ? Take it in consideration. Best regards and have a good week-end guys --Ndiverprime (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The user has expressed his wish to keep his user name here, so as above, until the policy on usurpations is changed, there is nothing more we can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as i see, this user is totally inactive since more than 2 years and was never active before as in the past he created just a single page. You seem to never take that in consideration

When i created my account on Wikipedia, the SUL was not yet available, which generate today some absurds situations like that ... I also never understood why the creation of a username is not for all the languages but only for one !

Since several months, i started to update the 250 valid species of sesarmid crabs on Wikispecies (under the username Ndiver, i remember you !) and wanted to do the same on Wikipedia EN (and as you can see it, there is tons to do, additionally, each species page of this family contains clear mistakes from what I have seen). I thanks you for helping me in this task.

WJBscribe said i quote: If you would like to propose a change to the policy and gain consensus for that change from the community, you are welcome to do so. How can i do such thing if it's the only way at the current point ?

Best regards, --Ndiverprime (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You could do so at WP:VP/P or at WT:CHU. Whichever one you choose, it might be worth signposting the discussion at the other. And here. --Dweller (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dweller, but where can i find written the current policy concerning the usernames ? I will probably put that at WP:VP/P. I will also notice here when the discussion will be open. Best regards, --Ndiverprime (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The current usurpation guideline is at WP:CHUG#Additional guidelines for usurpation requests. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 15:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

When SUL was introduced, I started Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames but it got little participation and was abandoned. See also this archived thread. I proposed, where the target had made no (or no significant) edits to articles, a usurpation request for SUL would be performed "even where the target user has objected to being renamed". That proposal met with agreement and is (as far as I concerned at least) the current approach. The question is whether this should be expanded to account that have made good faith contributions to articles in the past, but are now inactive other than to object to the usurpation. WJBscribe (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And in this specific case, it seems that the inactive user has actually asked not to be usurped. --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, additional words now added in italics. WJBscribe (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all these informations, i will take a look at that soon :-) WJBscribe, if i understand correctly, the problem highlighted in this discussion is not the first case and you already initiated a former discussion about it. Maybe we could consider to relaunch the discussion you initiated ? Best regards--Ndiverprime (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not the first time an account has refused to be usurped. This example comes to mind: [3] [4]. Note that in that case, the only edits the account had made before I renamed it to achieve unification of the single login was to object to usurpation. WJBscribe (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It confirms my impression that the current rule is too rigid, too strict and finally gives too much power to users that are not contribution to the encyclopaedia in opposition to users who bring something constructive. We should definitively change that in my humble opinion. --Ndiverprime (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :). So, we're making some design tweaks that should simplify the edit window a heck of a lot. Unless you're on Vector (and, for some elements, not only on vector but using the enhanced editing toolbar) you shouldn't particularly notice, but I wanted to give some advance notice, distributed as widely as possible. The full explanation is at the Village Pump (Technical); these should go live aroundabouts the 17th of September, so there's a while to discuss things, give feedback suggest changes for future projects if you're interested. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed some admins were inactive for several years aka (2 years+) now being inactive for a couple of weeks is fine but you should consider if they dont go on anymore to desysop them so that they have active admins monitoring wikipedia for Fraud, Copyright and any terms broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowwatcher (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Stephen 04:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no way for the bot to know, because it's made out of machines, but, as mentioned last year, I am still occasionally using admin tools, albeit read-only.

Having the ability to view deleted entries, especially, continues to prove helpful to me, as a lot of useful information, I find, can get lost in merges, and so on.

As always, much love to all my friends and colleagues. Sorry to have abandoned you all for so long now. I am writing a book ... it's about essence. And that's been taking a lot of my life force. All my love, El_C 13:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Persuant to this motion, please remove the sysop flag from EncycloPetey (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Apologies for the delay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Slacking TRM, off with your head! Thehelpfulone 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(I thought it was an hour and 25 mins, not just 25 mins... my browser is set to GMT, so I was an hour in the future.. Or the past... or somewhere....!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Over at WP:HD, there's a question from Vanischenu about the recently-lost password to an alternate account. Is it possible to resolve this by having him request a usurpation (WP:CHU from Vanischenu to the alternate) and then changing the username back to the original? Or should he be advised to create a new alternate account? Since the alternate account has confirmed that it's an alternate account, and since Vanischenu has confirmed at the HD that this is his alternate, we need not worry about copyright concerns. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bureaucrats,

This is Ryan aka Acetic Acid (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). I was promoted to administrator back in 2005 in the midst of my most active time on this site. Sadly, as a then 16-year-old, I burnt out rather quickly, and my activity level began slipping. I logged on occasionally during my college years, particularly near the end of 2008 to do some housekeeping.

Now, as a college graduate and member of the working world, I have considered returning to Wikipedia as a full-fledged contributor and administrator. After reading up on the 2011 proposal to desysop inactive administrators, I completely agree with the decision that was made. People come and go, and policies change over time. There is quite a lot for me to brush up on. I am interested in returning, if allowed. Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or my talk page. I'll do whatever is necessary for me to verify my identity and status.

Thank you for your consideration. - Acetic Acid 04:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. We ought to create a page that summarises some of the policy developments over a timeline, to encourage admins to return and help them get up to speed... --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, that is a great idea. Welcome back Acetic acid! Dlohcierekim 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Update, but that seems to list absolutely everything. Hut 8.5 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also last updated in 2011. I think they key thing is to work out what current practice is, and only work in one or two areas. The established way of handling things isn't necessarily written down anywhere. Secretlondon (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have to say the first thing I noticed is that a lot of tasks we used to perform manually are now run by bots. A lot less grunt work it seems! Acetic Acid 22:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Heck, I generally have to look the guidelines up before I do a lot of admin actions. :) --Rschen7754 05:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• With all due respect to the Administrator, why is there an automatic restoration of the bit here? In this case we have an editor who has made a total of 647 edits to mainspace to date, having passed RfA on his second try way back in 2005. To state that RfA standards have changed between then and now is a great understatement — there is absolutely no way that a new RfA would pass in this case. Yet the default is to restore the bit. I question the wisdom of this as a general principle. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it is perfectly wise to question this general principle - indeed I would personally encourage your concerns be discussed further. However it is important to note that bureaucrats simply enact consensus according to guidelines. The current consensus is that any returning administrator not "under a cloud" or ARBCOM sanction may have their tools restored. The bureaucrats have little or no mandate to refuse resysopping in all other cases - and wisely accept this. Dweller's re-granting was quite correct. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(To Carrite) I'm sorry that the return of Acetic Acid has left you with a sour taste. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NYB, please elemonate these bad puns from your repertoire. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, no worries, it's nothing worth taking a bi-carb over... Carrite (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

just to come back on this discussion i had here and that was sent to the archives (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Username:Ndiver), i wanted to inform the users that i finally opened a discussion in the Village pump to possibly make the Usurpation request less over-rigid as I consider it is currently.

Best regards, --Ndiverprime (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Why does this account still have a bot flag? It will most likely not edit again. I propose to remove the bot flag. --Meno25 (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably a non-issue, but a decent enough point. Flag removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have an updated opinion on things like Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Djkernen_.E2.86.92_Earthling? I'm seeing more and more usurp requests where experienced en-wikipedians want to rename to an name that has 10-30 other unattached local users on other projects with very few edits and little activity. I know it's making the SUL conflict worse to add in the English Wikipedian, but arguably, they will put the name to better use then any of the other unattached local users. Thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 20:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think such requests should be declined - we shouldn't be creating new SUL conflicts, or deciding that our editors have more entitlement to global names than users on other projects with relatively few edits. If a global account name includes an account on another wiki which, if it were an enwiki account, we wouldn't usurp, I don't think we should rename one of our users to that name. WJBscribe (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If anyone has a claim to that global name, it'd be one of those existing users, regardless of their activity level there. Doing this will only create more problems for those other projects. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okey, thanks guys. MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As the talk page thread was referenced above, this is a notice that I have requested arbcom review/act concerning the current situation. - jc37 03:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This has now been closed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bureaucrat_rights.27_proposal. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An interesting proposal. We don't promote anyone any more (no RFAs, RFBs), we only get scrutinised beyond belief for re-sysoping people, renaming accounts is virtually automated by virtue of the work the bots and the clerks do. Perhaps we should shut up shop and let the admins and stewards get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

May I have the flag re-hoisted, please? No elaborate ceremony is required. Bishonen (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log), 07:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

Done, welcome back (and, per tradition, sorry for the delay...) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Three minutes!? That's really slow! --Rschen7754 07:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the log, it was actually two minutes! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you back as an admin, Bishonen :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• as a procedural question, what has happened to the former standard of a hold period for multiple crats to consider whether a resysopping was proper? I don't mean to pick on Bishonen here, but I've noticed it a few times lately that the first crat who came along has flipped the switch, and I remember the dust-ups of years past about waiting for more than one set of eyes. (Checking WP:RESYSOP this does appear to be still SOP at least on paper. Courcelles 17:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus, as far as I am aware, was to determine that the account was not compromised. Bishonen continued editing, so there is no indication that her account is compromised. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That is for inactivity desysops. The practice of holding is older than those, and was originally in case someone (not limited to another crat) knew of a reason the desysop could be considered under a cloud. That just can't be checked in three minutes, and one person can't know all the circumstances that could create stormy weather. Again, I want to be clear, I don't know anything about Bishonen, but this was decided as best practice a couple years back. Courcelles 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, in this case I de-sysopped Bishonen at their request. There was nothing to be concerned about. So I re-sysopped Bishonen at their request. There was nothing to be concerned about. Nothing had changed. You can check the logs if you like. Of course, if there's any doubt as to why the admin bit was removed, then we'll have to talk about it. (FWIW, I disregarded step 3 of RESYSOP as I was the de-sysopping 'crat and the re-sysopping crat and have been aware of Bishonen's edits during this period).... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the context of his concern is the bottom of this thread, but I agree with TRM's actions here that it is within an individual crat's discretion to resysop, knowing that they bear the consequences of resysopping quickly if a more detailed examination would have discovered a problem. I think it's clear here that any concerns implicate post-resysopping problems and therefore TRM acted properly. MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The bottom of the thread at what point in time, MBisanz? You'd better refer to the specific post you mean, because that thread is a moving toyshop. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

I'll go with the 17:24, 28 September 2012 timestamp. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, Mbisanz, this has been happening a lot lately, just this one caught my eye while still fresh. 13 minutes, ten minutes, 3 minutes, 49 minutes, 13 minutes, 10 minutes. I could go on, but for whatever reason, this year there seems to be no chance being given for anyone to vet these requests, and that was long ago established as problematic. Courcelles 01:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just go ahead and mark WP:BURO as {{historical}}. Barring that, do you have reason to believe that any of these decisions could have done irreparable harm? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The intervening event would be the new desysop for inactivity provision with immediate regrant upon request. I surmise that other crats have interpreted this as a per se rule that if someone was desyopped for inactivity, they should almost always get it back. I also surmise that most of the current crats hate having the evaluate controversial behavior and wish that Arbcom would make decisions as to when re-sysopping is not permitted so that the burden isn't borne by a single crat, hence the move to auto-regrant and let Arbcom sort it out. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll resist the temptation to perform any re-sysop on my own in future, and wait for another 'crat to show up to vet my decisions. I must have missed where all those re-sysoped admins went off the rails or had dozens of skeletons fall out of their closets. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm, I think it was a valid question. Back in 2010, a bureaucrat proposed a 24 hour wait period, and bureaucrats decided this was a good idea -- see archived discussion WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 19#Formal consensus for 24 hour "wait" period for resysopping.
If consensus among you or community has changed (not talking about inactivity sysops here), or should be considered changed per current practice then fine, and please change the wording at WP:BUR to reflect this -- don't shoot the messenger for asking about it.
Amalthea 10:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I won't be doing it again, and will wait for a chaperone 'crat to help me out in future. As far as I know, nothing bad has ever happened following any of my quick resysops, and given the cliff-face drop-off in active admins, I thought encouraging those who wanted back in with no issues was a good idea. Rest assured I've learnt my lesson. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's fun to quote WP rules, I'd like to point out that WP:RESYSOP #3 clearly states that bureaucrats can use their discretion when performing resysops; given that TRM was the one that removed the bit in the first place, it makes sense that he'd consider the bit restoration uncontroversial. So... this resysopping was apparently done exactly within our guidelines. How about that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think waiting a few hours to make sure there are no circumstances a bureaucrat is unaware of before returning the bit is common sense, not bureaucracy. None of us can know everything that goes on in the wiki, and waiting for some input from others is not going to hurt anyone. That said, there's never really been a consensus between bureaucrats (let alone the wider community) as to whether a wait period is desirable. I think this (Feb 2010) was the last serious discussion of the issue. To repeat what I said back then:

The problem with a "formal consensus" on this issue is that I don't think any action will realistically be taken against crats who don't follow it. I can't see an RfC against a bureaucrat for restoring tools "too soon" in uncontroversial cases getting very far.

That said, I think that bureaucrats who choose to restore the tools without waiting for comments from the community about controversy they may have overlooked, or input from other bureaucrats, do so at their own risk. Should the decision to do so prove to be in error, I don't think a bureaucrat should be surprised if the community's confidence in them is shaken and would, I think, need to consider their position.

Whilst I encourage a short wait period, I recognise that there's little point in insisting on such a period. WJBscribe (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: My comments are on the topic in general, and not a direct reply to anyone else's comments. I don't see any issues at all with how this was handled. I think some people are getting a little too carried away with over scrutinizing these requests. As has been mentioned, there have been zero instances of a 'crat resysopping someone inappropriately, and I think all of us have enough clue to not restore the admin bit in cases which are potentially controversial. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party, as usual. I see no problems with the policy, or the actions of various crats. The policy is worded backwards, but in essence, strongly recommends a pause in cases where restoration may be controversial. Any crat speeding through a controversial resysop would quickly find themselves under scrutiny. Some of us are therefore more plodding with the resysops, some are less so, so far, so good. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I apologize for the absence, but I've now returned from Elba, and I do not see St. Helena on the horizon. I can provide my committed identity if necessary, or Wehwalt can vouch for me. Thanks in advance! -RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Desysopped for inactivity. Absolutely no questions of fitness on his prior user talk. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly!-RHM22 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back RHM22. A very quick re-sysop... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM. I haven't seen you in a while. I see you're as productive as ever.-RHM22 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Doing what I can! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 (talk · contribs) is being noted as an inactive admin at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators for November 2012; however, he is also an inactive bureaucrat. Wanted to make sure this wasn't missed. --Rschen7754 07:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'm inclined to think that there is some logic for removing both hats for inactivity, I don't think this is in policy and would want to see consensus for it before going ahead myself. And there's no pressing rush here that I can see that would prompt IAR. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It is policy - there was an RfC on it a while ago. Hut 8.5 21:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up. I misunderstood the point of the original post. So here's a more relevant response: if the crat who does the desysop doesn't remember to decrat Rdsmith4, I'm sure someone will remind us here or on the relevant crat's talk page. --Dweller (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Come back, Dan! I miss you! :-( Bishonen | talk 22:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC).

• If bureaucrat rights need removal, any other bureaucrat who tries to do that won't be able to - Special:ListGroupRights. Instead, a steward will have to be called on at m:Steward requests/Permissions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've covered myself in glory in this thread, haven't I? OK brain (what's left of you), let's go to bed. --Dweller (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I could do it as a crat-steward, but I suspect there is a steward COI rule that would prevent me from acting. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's not a pressing enough need to risk someone getting upset over a COI violation. Ideally, we'd be able to remove the 'crat flag too, but eh, that's not really a fight I feel like fighting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No disrespect to you, MBisanz, but [sadly ] Dan was the best crat-steward ever! He moved my admin tools to Bishzilla! (I wonder what Courcelles would have said about that.) Bishonen | talk 23:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC).
    • I dunno about courcelles, but afaik, tools are given to a person, not an account : ) - jc37 23:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC) - Though just read WP:ADMIN and found the bolded quote: "Only one account of a given person may have administrative tools."... - jc37 23:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I was pointed to this discussion as an uninvolved steward. I would like to suggest you to file a request here to remove only the bureaucrat right of this user as per the local policy you adopted. So a steward will remove his bureaucrat rights, and then you can remove the admin flag with the help of your bureaucrats. Hope it helps, thanks, — T. 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Okey, will list at SRP next month. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a totally uncontroversial action, so I don't see an issue with an enwiki steward performing a procedural desysop. That said, I hope Dan returns to activity before it is necessary to action this - he is already much missed. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I was just thinking today how much I miss you all as well. I will return to activity when I can, but I'm afraid I won't be able to do so before the month is out. I understand the policy and will yield both of my permissions for security reasons until I can plausibly expect to need them again — several months down the line at the soonest. Thank you so much, Bishonen and WJB, for your kind words, and I'll be back in a while. Happy editing, as ever. Yours — Dan | talk 00:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you just posted is an edit, which under the terms of the policy, resets the clock and cancels any automatic desysopping (or decratting). If you want to relinquish the tools temporarily, that's up to you, but the policy doesn't require it any more. And I'm glad to see you at least checking in here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I have updated the inactive list accordingly. Any interim resignation is a matter for you. Hope to see you around more in a few months. WJBscribe (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yay! MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! Welcome... well, not back, but... Uh, just welcome. Yeah. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask for help, but there appears to be a giant brawl occurring on the talk pages of WT:DYK and Talk:Main Page and I think some oversight is needed. It appears to have started with this proposal to allow newly minted GA articles to be eligible for WP:DYK. After 2 weeks of voting, 120+ votes cast and having the results showing the Supports with a 60% majority, attempts made to close that discussion have been hindered by claims of bias. Adding to this is a related proposal: Talk:Main page#GA Main Page slot proposal. I personally think this second proposal would be irrelevant if the first proposal to allow GAs on the Main page through DYK is allowed to stand. (Or at least, I have abstained from voting because my vote depends on the result of the first proposal). With all the heated words being exchanged, and because these discussions are taking place in multiple places, and because these things may potentially drastically change the main page, I am hoping someone with a clear head can help sort things out. Thanks. --Tea with toast (話) 02:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of additional background: the Talk:Main Page proposal currently appears to be split down the middle and there is a discussion ongoing at WT:DYK#Disregard the result and rerun as a properly organised RfC? about restarting the process as a proper RfC (which neither of these straw-poll proposals were). Both of these issues need to be taken into consideration in deciding what to do about closing the proposals (if indeed they should be closed). Prioryman (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A different take

From my perspective, there are some involved who really want to improve DYK. But it also takes on the flavor of an attempted hostile takeover, more than once dropping the name of Jimmy Wales into it to justify what is happening. I think this has reached the stage where some might not want resolution as much as they want to take DYK over. For those with that leaning, resolving one issue will just result in a different issue thrown into the mix to rouse things. No amount of "support" or "oppose" votes will bring this to a conclusion:

• GibraltarpediA was a genuine concern that resulted in My request of Sept 21 to take it to a formal discussion that could gain consensus.

• Which led to This begun Sept 21, and eventually to the:
• Notice of the formal discussion was placed at DYK talk page on Sept 23
• The Sept 24 issue of Signpost had an article that included a link to the controversy at DYK
• The request to close out the GibraltarpediA Options discussion was posted October 3
• Discussion closed 01:47 October 3 by an uninvolved party.

• The Gibraltar-related October 3 discussion was begun on the DYK talk page at at 07:02 October 3, five minutes after the above discussion was closed..
• This Thread more heavily dropping Jimmy Wales into it, began on Oct 7, and has continued in one form of another. In response:

• I began this GA proposal on Oct 7 as a subsection and was advised to move it to the Main Page talk. I don't pretend to be a mediator, don't have any experience at engineering resolutions, but it seemed like GA was being manipulated, dropped into this, without the consent of its members.

For the record, Jimmy Wales whose name is so freely dropped into the melee, has not posted any opinion at DYK. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: While I appreciate that you came here asking for a discussion closure, the referenced discussion is not specifically assigned to the bureaucrats for closure and therefore can be closed by any administrator under the normal processes. MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's clear my RFA won't be successful. Please withdraw it. Thank you to all who participated. PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of RFA's, can someone fix the close on Ragshuri's? It was closed by Lego ... the editor asked for re-opening ... I reverted that re-opening, but it doesn't appear properly closed. Can someone with their RFA-closing infinite abilities fix whatever mess Lego and I made ASAP? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it's done :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I just had a look at AIV and CAT:CSD and thought I could help out again. I was de-admin-ed due to inactivity. Cheers, James086 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) James086^{Talk | Email} 14:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 15:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) James086^{Talk | Email} 16:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody could close the QuiteUnusual RfA. It was at 71% support earlier this morning when it was supposed to end, but votes are still being piled on, and the support level has recently dropped to 70%. I think it would be a little messy if the support dropped into the automatic fail region after the time limit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the stated time is the time which the RFA should not be closed earlier than. It's not a limit, and bureaucrats may extend an RFA if they think it would aid a clearer outcome. WilliamH (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is not a hard and fast limit, the term "time left" on the Rfa table is misleading and should be changed to "optional time left" or "minimum time left." In something as charged as an Rfa, defining such matters so that they are clear to all parties is rather important, as I see it. By the way, Adjwilley, there is no hard and fast "automatic fail" percentage, as I believe a number of admins have been handed the mop at under 70%, though perhaps not in the past few years. Jusdafax 18:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've closed it. I'm sorry it took a while (been away from my keyboard all day...) but reading through the all the various support/oppose opinions took some time, and I felt the concerns of the opposers justified an unsuccessful closure at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@WilliamH, Jusdafax: Thank you, that answered several questions that were bugging me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:RAIDENRULES123 created the account User:Deidra C. after losing her password to the primary account with no ability to recover the password. What action should be taken, if any, to link the accounts? I left an idea of simply moving the user and talk pages at User talk:Keilana; however, I am unsure if anything needs to be done beyond that. Ryan Vesey 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of a histmerge and redirect, yeah, but I wanted to check here first - thanks Ryan. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! A histmerge is fine. As is a simple redirect. Even a link on the old page to the new page is fine. {{Former account}} or {{User previous account}} would also be fine. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much Matt, I'll go talk to her and see what I can do. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the continuing complaints over RFA and because I have a bit more time on my hands, I decided to try and monitor RFAs in greater detail to improve the general climate of things. My plan was (and hopefully remains) to tackle the existence of meritless and insufficient commenter rationales, remove and/or block disruptive comments and discussions, and otherwise play a more active role in the process. You can see the impetus for my actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_MBisanz. Among my initial actions were to warn some people for bickering, remove an inappropriate comment, indent a moral support, and indent some supports that lacked rationales. Maxim reverted my final action, so in the grand tradition of WP:BRD, I decided to come here to talk about it.

My rationale is that we should be evenhanded in managing RFA and this includes striking problematic supports to the same extent as problematic opposes; my goal is to improve the RFA climate, not simply increase the number of people passing. Moral supports aren't true supports because the very fact it is has a modifier means the commenter doesn't actually believe the user is qualified to be an admin and is doing so out of a moral obligation to be nice. Supports without rationales or without even a bolded word don't provide context to understand how or why the commenter believes the user is qualified. In fact, a simple signature in the support section doesn't even verify that the user intended to support, it could have been in the wrong section. As Maxim noted in his edit summary, I didn't indent similarly short comments such as "of course" or "Quite unusual indeed"; I think the addition of those comments at least indicate thought on the commenter's part of the candidate's name or that they already have reviewed his contributions and find them far in excess of what is required. I'd like to continue doing this sort of RFA management to try and improve the climate at RFA, but I'd also like Maxim's and other's thoughts. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see issues of consistency, you can't monitor every RFA or even every part of a single RFA. No issue with removing vacuous supports or opposes (there will be more such supports, typically) but there is an issue of awareness. An !voter may not be aware that their simple "vote" has been discounted. That seems unfair and you will be challenged that your actions breach WP:TPO. A message needs to be sent saying that a !vote will be removed unless enhanced. Leaky Caldron 15:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see notifying people their comments need more could be an alternative. I do have a fair bit of time on my hands and we have picked up a couple of new crats, so I'm not super worried about being unable to monitor RFA. MBisanz ^talk 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with crats discounting votes in their final decision making but I don't think it should be done while the !vote is going on. Its a very arbitrary distinction you are making in some of those cases. Its long been felt for a support all you need is to just say you support. So to suddenly change it without mentioning such a change would have been inappropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, but as I said at RFAR, a big part of the problem at RFA is that the crats aren't acting until the close. Not removing comment during the process perpetuates the negative experience candidates go through. And only removing improper oppose comments seems uneven to me. MBisanz ^talk 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Waste of time and energy and a slippery slope that will lead to more arguments. Drawing the line at negative comments is hard enough (how negative is a comment, at what point does the drama go out of control, etc. etc.) but even for support !votes are you going to indent !votes without comments. What about #support. I have a good feeling about this, that's with a comment but is no more meaningful than #support. I understand that you think something must be done but this is a case of less is more. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My thought would be that a comment like "I have a good feeling about this" shows that the person making it may not have deeply investigated the candidate's suitability, but simply is willing to take the risk of promoting them. If a later commenter brought forward evidence of problems (copyvios, poor CSD tagging, etc), such a support comment should be discounted to a greater degree than someone who has investigated and does not see a similar problem. MBisanz ^talk 15:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the point RegentsPark is making here. However, if one assumes that removing baseless supports is something worth doing, then one must draw the line somewhere, and personally I think it should definitely be drawn more towards leaving a few baseless supports in (having false negatives) rather than removing supports that have actually been thought out (having false positives). The fact that there is an improvement should be enough, and whether that improvement completely removes baseless supports (which is impossible to do without reading minds) is irrelevant. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fair. What would you think about asking people to leave a more detailed support, but not actually removing bare supports? MBisanz ^talk 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with you remove supports with no comments. That said, I think a better approach would be to (kindly) ask people who leave no comment to provide one, and that if they do not then their vote may not be considered by the closing bureaucrat. For now, as I've noted in my comment above, I think that anyone who leaves any kind of comment other than simply "Support" should be excluded from this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is uneven if you only did so with opposes. I have no problem with it if it is supported by the community. I was mostly just stating doing it without warning was more the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is in deciding what's meaningful and what is not. For example, I see a "Looks good to me" support !vote on this RfA. What if there were an oppose !vote with the exact inverse rationale "Looks bad to me"? Both beg the question Why? and both editors should be asked why it looks good or bad. I suspect, however, that the oppose version will be questioned but not the support version. (Similarly, there is a "Net positive" support rationale. Would that have the same effect as a "Net negative" oppose rationale?) Not against this but it needs to be thought through. I like the idea of pinging editors asking them to elaborate on their !vote because that is less an overt change to the process and will end up adding information to the RfA ("net positive"!). --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with the idea of the bureaucrats taking a little bit of a more hands-on role in monitoring the tone of discussion at RfA and intervening when things are deteriorating. Although not a 'crat, I myself have occasionally indented or removed obvious absurdities in a pending RfA (e.g., "Oppose. I just counted and I've opposed 99 RfAs and I want to get to a round hundred"), gross attacks ("Oppose. Candidate is blatantly anti-Semitic," with no evidence, posted as a new account's first contribution), and the like. The elected 'crats have greater discretion to do that sort of thing, especially given the concern that's been expressed that the RfA process may itself be deterring candidates from applying.

However, I cannot fully agree with the level of policing that MBisanz is describing, for a number of reasons. For example, "moral support" votes are almost invariably cast only when an RfA clearly is not going to pass, so indenting them or debating whether they should be indented is not going to be a productive use of anyone's time. Unexplained support votes certainly are not optimal, but they are at least understandable for reasons that have been regularly discussed on WT:RFA since around 2003, and I don't think it's a good plan to suddenly start indenting them; a better plan to try to encourage more informed commenting (from both supporters and opposers) might be to leave a note on the talkpage of anyone who posts such a vote, encouraging him or her to return to the RfA and provide a rationale. Pointing out that a given counter-tool has flaws does not strike me as grounds for blocking.

I am glad that MBisanz opened this discussion, and will be interested in others' comments. I've typed "vote" rather than "!vote" solely for reasons of readability. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I can see the points about supports, but smacking a red label on every use of a counter tool because the tagger thinks it has flaws is really a disruptive battleground mentality. If some people want to use a method that other people think has flaws as their basis of commenting, it shouldn't be penalized with a red tag anymore than people who oppose for 1FA or, now, 1GA. It just makes the environment less pleasant and blocking to prevent it does communicate a message that it's unacceptable to make RFA unnecessarily unpleasant (plus, as shown years ago with Kurt, simple removal leads to lots of problems, not that blocking would've solved it with him, but a nice indef block by a crat until Kurt agreed to stop making RFA with his repetitive comment would've helped). MBisanz ^talk 16:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not just remove the red tag? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In that example, going straight to a block without giving the editor a chance to refactor what to many would be an informative clarification is inappropriately heavy handed. Leaky Caldron 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply removing the red tag leaves the message and communicates it is ok to follow people around and continue to argue with them. The person making the comment needs to understand it is unacceptable and needs to indicate they will not do so in the future. I could also see a userpage message saying "Your comment is unacceptable, if you do not remove it, you will be blocked until you agree to remove it." I can see warning in that case since it was early in a matter, but some of the sniping that goes on at RFA is a continual problem and the person doing it, knows they can get away with it. MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good grief. You know, MBisanz, if you had come directly to me - whether by intervening in that conversation, or by message on my talk page - and told me that my comment was over the top, I would simply have removed it myself. It was excessive, and purely motivated out of worry, as I've already informed you on your talk page. Not out of a "disruptive battleground mentality". I'm disgusted at that allegation; in ten years with this project I've never "battled" with anyone. Nor have I any intention of starting now. Why are you inflating what could have been an open-and-shut matter into... I don't know what to call it, this? You've been making these weird implications about my conduct on various pages that I almost certainly don't monitor, here included, alluding to me but not mentioning me by name. Have you any idea how unpleasant that feels? — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So factually accurate comments with or without the triangle such as " ' The tool you are referring to is not used in any official capacity on AfD, nor has it been submitted for such, subject to code analysis, or had any of its metrics approved by consensus. Please do not use anything it generates as a substitute for personal editorial judgment." are to be removed and the editor potentially blocked due to a discussion that has taken place away from the specific RFA? Leaky Caldron 16:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think my own comment was misinterpreted, I was actually referring to another one of Scottywong's tools which would have been clear if the above comment had been read at the time it was made (the editor removed the link after I pointed out that it wouldn't work). I've clarified my comment to specify which tool I was referring to, so I'm not sure "factually accurate" is the best term for Hex's comment. Legoktm (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is accurate in relation to the new tool to which Hex was referring. Leaky Caldron 16:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If the person has declared outside of an RFA that they're going to go around and annotate all comments they think include certain objectionable material and then goes forward and does it in an RFA, then yes, they're going to be blocked for battleground conduct. They're certainly free to go and make their own comment in the opposing view from their own criteria or to discuss with a person at their talk page why they think a method is suspect, but once they've communicated their view and the person using a method indicates they don't mind the flaws, they have to drop it and stop continuing the argument, especially at an RFA. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you're going to talk about something I said, would you at least have the common decency to quote me contextually? I said to Scottywong: The very fact that you are referring to [the tool] at all in RfA comments gives [it] an air of credibility which it does not deserve. Then when he indicated his intention to keep using it, I replied I... shall take pains to point out on any future RfAs where you refer to your creation that it is not reliable or useful, let alone official. Because the tool in question assigned a completely unfair and arbitrary "score" to people, which makes a mockery of the entire process. That was it; the whole conversation, in the first time (this week) I've ever been involved in the area of discussing the RfA process. That's why the RfA comment which you've been referring to ended with "Please do not use anything it generates as a substitute for personal editorial judgment." Because I was afraid that people would start !voting with comments like "gets a low score on Scottywong's tool". Was I wrong to do that? Sure. Okay. I have no problem with admitting my mistakes. What I do not deserve is this Kafkaesque treatment that you're submitting me to here. I'm actually upset; you've genuinely upset me. That's a total rarity in my Wikipedia career. Well done. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. If someone uninvolved pointed it out it would be ok? Leaky Caldron 16:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's again a context specific matter. Does the person keep pointing it out at every RFA? Are they pointing out an actual flaw (such as that the commenter plugged in the wrong username to a tool or that the tool doesn't take into account a factor the commentor thinks it did) or are they arguing that the commenter is wrong to use a particular set of standards? Does their objection to its application relate specifically to the use of the criterion for the candidate in question or are they picking a fight over the criterion itself in a forum where it will have a collateral effect on the candidate? Are they disengaging when the commenter indicates they are aware of the shortcoming and still wants to keep using it? All of these are factors that determine if the comment is a good faith discussion or an attempt to insert a battle into the RFA. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Matt. I'll say no more in case anyone thinks I'm attempting to insert a battle here. ;) Leaky Caldron 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll just make one comment for clarification. In the style of an RfC/U, would it be entirely appropriate to comment on the merits of a tool in your own support or oppose? I.e. (Support While some of the opposers have mentioned the candidate's admin score, I have found that tool to be a poor untested reflection of his abilities because of...). This is assuming that the !vote was an alternative to commenting on another's saying, in your oppose you used a poor untested tool... Ryan Vesey 17:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Again, it's a context question though. As you say, something that relates the objection to the candidate "This tool wrongly portrays him because it doesn't look at X" is better than "I'm voting this way to spite the idiots using this silly criteria." MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

On that point, I think a reasonable stricken comment would be "Support per (Name of opposer)" where it is clear that the support is based solely on the fact that a specific editor opposed. Alternatively "Oppose, I cannot support somebody nominated by (Nominator)". While I think supports based on the qualifications of the nominator are reasonable, there is no reasonable situation where a specific editor is always wrong in their decision and should be counteracted on that reason rather than merits. Ryan Vesey 18:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Supports without rationales have always been treated as "per nom" or to indicate overall confidence in a candidate. I see no reason to require platitudes from those commenting. Opposes need to be explained, supports do not - they are quite clear enough to me. The support votes should not have been indented. To do so without seeking a consensus first significantly overstepped what the community has mandated bureaucrats to do. Greater oversight of problematic conduct at RfA is welcome - support voting without comments does not IMO fall within that category. WJBscribe (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okey, I accept that. I was attempting to be evenhanded, lest people interpreted increased oversight as merely a pretext to increase passage rates, but I can see that there remains strong support for permitting plain supports. MBisanz ^talk 17:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think WJBscribe has a very good point here. General talk of indenting supports as well as opposes makes sense from a point of view focused on taking equal action; however, a support offered without explanation assumes that the nomination statement was rational enough. A similar thing can and should happen in the oppose column "Oppose per issues raise by editor B", or just "per editor B". This keeps the same argument from being replayed over and over. There is no base oppose, which is why we tend to require rationales for oppose !votes and not support !votes. I think MBisanz comments on clerking overly confrontational comments is more important than unsupported or poorly supported comments. Ryan Vesey 17:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this is wrong - if supports without rationale indicate "confidence in a candidate", surely opposes without rationale would indicate a lack thereof? We should be strongly encouraging reasonable discussion and !votes based on actual reasoning. Either both bare supports and bare opposes should be indented (preferred), or neither should be; after all, this is a consensus-building process, not a vote. Why should we assume that baseless supports have a base and baseless opposes have none? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also uncomfortable with, though don't feel as strongly about, the indenting of "moral support" comments. These have long been used to try and make the RfA process a less unpleasant place. I don't know if it works, but I have certainly seen people comment in such a way to make constructive feedback or reassure the candidate that they are a "good egg" even the person commenting does not feel able to give full support. RfAs are not closed by the tally, so I don't see any reason why such comments should be indented. Where people indicate their support to be "weak" or "moral", they helpfully flag up to the closing bureaucrat how much weight they would like to be given to the comment. I for one am content with how that aspect works.
RfA is currently failing to promote sufficient new admins and many are being discouraged from taking part. I can't help but think that is is a reflection on how some people oppose and the exam-style questions becoming all to prevelant, not how people support. WJBscribe (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, if the 'crats feel they should be discounted as supports, that can be simply be done by the closing crat when evaluating the decision, rather than by indenting things during the RfA or explicitly. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My feeling was that moral supports, as opposed to weak supports, weren't true comments in that the person didn't actually believe the person was competent, they just didn't want to hurt their feelings. Since I was hoping to communicate that people who oppose have to maintain a high level of conduct, I thought it was equally fair to say that supporters had to maintain a similarly high level of conduct and that making such a comment did not express their honest assessment of the user. But, since it's unlikely to trigger ill-feelings of the type causes by arguments and opposes, I can drop it. MBisanz ^talk 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What about moving moral supports to the neutral column? I've seen some put their moral support there anyways. Ryan Vesey 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I proposed greater Crat policing of RfAs about a year ago, on this page. I think you must have missed the discussion, MBisanz. I still think it's a good idea, but only if there's community consensus for it. But I'm only really interested in stamping out bad behaviour, not weak !voting - we handle that fairly efficiently when we weigh consensus. --Dweller (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I might be a bit late here, but I can certainly explain my reasoning. Broadly, I had made the revert for two reasons. First, no other comment other than "support" is an arbitrary cut-off point; as I had mentioned in the edit-summary, in terms of substance, comments like "of course" are no more useful than no comment at all. Secondly, as WJBScribe pointed out, plain support votes have been traditionally treated as "per nom"-type comments. Maxim_(talk) 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps follow the approach used by market researchers or indeed for article feedback? They would do something like present the editor with a form with 5 radio buttons and a comments box. The radio buttons would give, say, a choice of "strongly support", "support", "neutral", "oppose" and "strongly oppose". The response couldn't be saved (except for neutral) unless some comment is entered in the form. I am not saying this is sensible idea per se; I'm saying that getting a response and comments to back it up is bread and butter to market researchers so surely there's something we can appropriately leverage? QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 09:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose removing/indenting bare supports, or "moral" supports. There is no case made that these things are a problem. For bare supports, sometimes everything has already been said, and there is not enough in opposition to be requiring reply. Forcing the use of a formulaic "per nom", or "opposes unconvincing", or "per above" to escape the new MustIncludeMinimumRationale rule would not be of any benefit to the process, and it would be detrimental in appearing to establish an encultured minimum involvement in the process before being allowed to participate and thus may discourage newcomers from getting involve at RFA. I agree with MBisanz intent of clerking the process, but agree with Maxim's revert and see it as marking a point outside of what should be done. Also, I have unease with the possibility of the closer having got involved in an RFA by clerking it. If a MBisanz wants to keep trying, good, but he should not then close an RFA on a page that he has edited. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I've spent a fair amount of time of late reading over the changing username pages. (Another place of bureaucrat responsibility.)

Something that happens there quite often is a bureaucrat (or some other helpful editor) asks the requestee if they understand or are aware of "X". (such as using their real name, etc.)

For RfA, instead of just indenting JUSTAVOTE, how about if we have a standard question that can also be asked. I've seen several editors do this in the past to varying degrees of "success".

Something like:

1. Support - User:JUSTAVOTER

   Are you aware that by merely "voting", your "vote" will likely be discounted by the closer? You may wish to expand upon your comments, explaining your reasons.

(The above should be considered a rough draft, alternate suggestions most welcome.) - jc37 19:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal; I think the proposed comment is highly misleading. It would not be my practice to discount such a support, and I really hope that no other bureaucrat would do so. Someone supporting without further reason is expressing general confidence in a candidate and there is no reason to discount that. It is one thing to expect explanation from opposers because the reasons for doing so are often not readily apparently, but that does not apply to supports. In a close run RfA, the fact that the supporters fail to deal with the concerns of the opposers may well be a factor that tips the balance towards an RfA being unsuccessful, but that is a long way from saying that supports without rationales are likely to be discounted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I was basing it upon Mbisanz's recent actions. But ok, in reading your (WJB's) comments here and above, what if I change the word above from support to oppose?

My goal is enhancing communication, not to change current policy in any way. - jc37 20:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WJB pretty much said it all already. The default position at a RfA would be to support a candidate, as adminship is no big deal, so if there are no issues with the candidate, one should be simply supporting. I'd take a support without a reason as a "no reason not to", which is the basic position we're supposed to have when faced with a RfA. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the "no big deal" train left a long time ago. The default for a no-consensus RfA is not to promote; why should the default position be considered a support? This issue is particularly important when there are "valid" opposes; given that they've been given a reason not to support, voters should at least give some indication why they're supporting. I really hope bureaucrats are considering the weight of arguments in all RfAs, not only those that are borderline. Consensus, not voting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying to make "support" the default. They are saying that a naked support has an implicit rationale, that is, they share the rationale of the nominators. I would say that naked opposition has an implicit rationale as well once several valid oppositions have been lodged, even though the community is more likely to prompt a naked oppose for clarification. Gigs (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Er, yes they are - look at the comment I replied to, which says that explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. I missed a little context there. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:AGF should be the starting point and the "per nom" standard for supports without justification should be accepted. Supports stating "because it balances out oppose xyz" and similar should be challenged or discounted at closing. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that if crats regularly disregard "moral" support, then indenting them is a good thing. MBisanz indented a "moral support" at my RfA. It made me wonder if the guy that left the "moral" support really intended for his support to not count at all, since my request wasn't a complete lost cause. Commenting votes that the crat intends to ignore should be more common, if you all can agree on criteria. Gigs (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether or not you think support votes that give no reason should not be discounted, I think it is not unreasonable to ask such voters to explain the reasons for their support. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot?

I think I could make a bot do the above instead of a crat. It could add the above question below, notify the user on their talk page, and then 3 days later it would indent the vote. No?--v/r - TP 16:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You first need to establish that there is community consensus that bare supports should not be tolerated. I see no such consensus currently. --Dweller (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Morning everyone, I'd like to voluntarily give up my admin tools given that I don't really have the time to use them any more, and have been unable to follow recent developments, making me unfamiliar with new policies and unable to keep myself in practice. Many thanks, SalopianJames (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thank you for your service. To whom it may concern, this desysop was not "under a cloud". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I surrendered all of my flags here, but I am fleetingly around and it seems pointless to make more work for others by asking them, when I have the scope to do it myself, so I'm requesting my admin and crat flags back. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! WilliamH (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of proposing a question for the next RfC on Pending Changes, but I better check with you guys first. (Pending Changes is a tool designed to keep some edits, mostly by new users, from appearing until the edits have been reviewed. A quick history is at WP:PC2012. Some people are against it, some are for it, and most are ignoring it ... but I think that the community of people who are likely to use the tool deserve respect and support, regardless of how this new experiment turns out.) To bottom-line this: the current thinking is that admins will promote and demote reviewers, and this will never be a big deal. And I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. The question is: what route do we go when there's disagreement? We could invoke WP:WHEEL and escalate through the DR-ANI-Arbcom route, or we could make it a policy that, whenever there's a disagreement on who should be promoted, a person or people will step in, listen to all sides, and make a call. That sounds very much like what crats were elected to do. Do you guys have any thoughts one way or another on whether this is a role you'd be interested in? - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see this as a problem. I have yet to see a serious disagreement on the WP:RFPERM pages. Most disagreements are the user complaining when declined the user rights rather than admins disputing assignment of the rights. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big deal because it hasn't started yet; my goal here is to keep it from morphing into a big deal. RfA wasn't a big deal either, when it was getting started. Any process like this inevitably becomes either irrelevant or complicated, and the question is how best to manage disagreements. Btw, I haven't been keeping an eye on RFPERM ... I've only noticed one discussion, on an admin's talk page ... and I disagreed with the call. But I don't think it's really possible to talk about right calls and wrong calls until Pending Changes evolves; we'll have to see what the work and the workload is, who shows up to do the work, and how the larger community reacts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I've just skimmed the history from September and October for the reviewer-right section at RFPERM; Reaper Eternal handled most of them, and Kudpung and Ks0stm did some. I want to be clear that this isn't a request that someone keep an eye on Reaper ... skimming, it looks like he's doing a really fine job. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't even realize that my reply could imply that I was guarding a fiefdom! I was just commenting that I didn't see conflicts arising over who should be assigned the 'reviewer' usergroup, although I suppose it is best to be proactive. However, I still think that the standard practice of obtaining consensus should apply if a dispute arises. Thanks for the review though! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The problem I see is that you only want us to be involved when there is a dispute, so we're acting more as a decider of who is right instead of looking for consensus like we do at RFA. One of the keys to RFA/Bot/CHU is that we're the only ones who can do the action, so even if a non-crat disagrees, they can't undo the action (other crats can, but that almost never happens because of the small group dynamic). Our decisions aren't final because they're correct, but final because no one can undo us. It wouldn't be that case in the situation you're proposing. MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my question Matt ... we're putting together a policy RfC now. It's possible that the voters at the RfC will decide that it's okay for a crat to step in with a final call in cases where the crat decides that that would help avoid the kind of unpleasantness or escalation that might harm the process. If that's what's decided, would you (or any of you) be interested in that role? - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be against creating policy guidance for something that will likely never become a problem. For better or worse, our policy is reactive to actual problems. Gigs (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Letting people know that we have no idea what we're going to do if they cause trouble may invite trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's implicit that if such a situation actually escalated, it would go to ANI. Gigs (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That was the question in my first paragraph: whether people prefer the ANI/Arbcom route, or whether we'd rather someone step in from a set of people who have been selected by the community to handle situations very much like this, so that they could attempt to calm things down and assess consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm just saying that if we don't address it at all, I think it's clear that that is the default, and that people won't assume that "we have no idea". Gigs (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded that the 'crats were selected or endorsed by the community to handle 'situations very much like this', though. For better or worse, the community expects and demands 'crats to be reliable, moist robots, who will press the promote button on any RfA nomination that gets >75%, fail any nomination that pulls <70%, and flips a coin for anything that falls between those limits. (They can also call shenanigans in the event of confirmed or conspicuous sockpuppetry, and they can shut down egregiously malformed or trainwrecked nominations.) That's it. The 'crats don't really evaluate the RfA candidates in any meaningful sense; the community demands that the 'crats just count votes. That's a far, far cry from asking the 'crats to evaluate evidence of misconduct and issue binding judgements. Not only would such a responsibility be outside of their job description, but it runs the risk of tarnishing their reputation and credibility, and therefore their ability to perform their other roles in the quiet, efficient, and largely uncontroversial way we have enjoyed for many years. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would generally agree with Ten. While in the past I have advocated a larger dispute resolution role for the crats, I perceive there is a significant degree of credibility conferred on crat decisions because crats are the only ones involved in the process of making the decisions and don't have to review individual conduct or venture outside the quasi-echo chamber that is the small group of fellow crats. I think leaving it to AN and Arbcom would probably be the best matter. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, not a problem ... but it's good to know the answer going in. So now we've got a different set of problems to deal with. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please can I be reopped? Since I seem to have been closing a lot of DRVs recently it makes sense for me to take back my bit which was removed uncontroversially. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can't understand this inordinate delay by Rambling Man to resysop Spartaz... Wifione ^Message 08:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back, Spartaz. EVula // talk // ☯ // 09:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Inactive administrators notification was delayed a week and today is listed day of removal for the following:

• Fastfission (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Flockmeal (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Humblefool (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Johntex (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• JWSchmidt (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Khukri (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Pollinator (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Shanel (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Tizio (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Vzbs34 (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)

Thanks. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is in progress here. Churn and change (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that discussion is ensuing. Is there a reason why this is not a proper RFC? Proposals to change policy should normally be done through RFC. And is this on CENT? Is there a watchlist notice? Risker (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a RFC, though the template's a section up. --Rschen7754 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is on CENT. I have posted a request for a watchlist notice; somebody can look at it and decide. Churn and change (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish to request reactivation of my administrative tools - they were removed uncontroversially due to inactivity, as I departed the editing community for a period. Thank you. FCYTravis (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No edits since the time of desysopping, looks fine to me. I or someone else will get to this later today. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I'm not sure what's going on, but please see Polarscribe's contributions, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FCYTravis and the FCYTravis → Polarscribe section at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As well as this. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first question to FCYTravis, have you edited under the account called User:Polarscribe? If so, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh Lord. How ridiculous. Note that the "sockpuppet" allegation has been closed by a Clerk as unfounded. I created this new account with my current Internet identity, and then decided that it makes sense to reclaim my previous editing history by merging with the previous account. polarscribe (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Erm, the USURP request (and this BN request) were filed BEFORE the SPI. From what I can see, Travis left in good standing in 2008, was desysopped for inactivity in 2011, thought about coming back as Polarscribe on November 5, 2012 changed his mind on November 6, 2012 and requested to usurp the new account name with his older edit contribution history. Am I missing something? MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. I just wanted to understand why the new account was registered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, Matthew. There was an inadvertent conflict of accounts on one article because I forgot to log out while switching back and forth to verify the merger request - which was filed more than 30 minutes before the allegations of sockpuppetry. If I am attempting to be a sockpuppet, I've been a very poor one indeed. polarscribe (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• FCYTravis, would you be kind enough to explain why you edited as an IP, then registered a new account, then wanted to reactivate your sysop bit on your previous account when you got into a dispute? I'm not going to say this is an abusive use of socks, but it does look fishy to uninvolved outsiders. — Coren ^(talk) 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I made a public request to merge accounts at 17:25 UTC at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. The two accounts in question are both mine, I have never pretended otherwise and I will never claim otherwise. My current Internet identity is under this username, and I thought about starting fresh - but I decided that I would rather reconnect with my extant editing history and administrative tools. polarscribe (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • (e/c) I don't. In fact, I've told so explicitly. What I did say is that it looks odd that you'd choose to create a new account, enter into a dispute, then reactivate your older one. Try to look at this from an outside view, and you'll see why I'm asking. Struck because you changed your answer, and that was responding to the previous one. — Coren ^(talk) 19:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That's all I was wondering. — Coren ^(talk) 19:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose Check out the history of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary and its talk page. He used a]His IP address b] Polarscribe c] FYUTravis accounts to argue the same point and then in a recent edit summary claimed to be a different editor. He protests his innocence (and the edits he made as FYUTravis are now covered up with Polarscribe), which of course is possible, but if you actually examine his approach to the editorial dispute, the editor warring, the lordly tone in discussions, his intolerance to neutral perspectives and the views of others this is clearly not somebody worthy of adminship? You give him the tools and he'll a] Fully protect the Alcatraz article. b] Will make up an excuse to block me. Why do you think an editor who has long departed would suddenly want the tools again? You resysop him and he edits the Alcatraz article as an admin, I swear I will leave this website. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dr Blofeld, thanks for your analysis. I'm sure we'll take a longer, harder look now, but your threats to "leave this website" don't really help the situation. We need an objective approach here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)Crats will return an admin under the admin policy if "there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." We are not empowered to re-judge the requesting user's suitability to regain the tools and must base our decision on the validity of their identity and the circumstances under which the tools were removed. Predictions of future abuse are insufficient grounds to deny the request. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be two accounts with the polarscribe/Polarscribe name now: Polarscribe (usurped) and Polarscribe/polarscribe. Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You give him tools again and he uses his admin tools to get his own way on the Alcatraz article or block me, I will leave this project in disgust. If you must restore his admin tools I ask you to at least show some respect here and take into account the seemingly obvious reasons why he suddenly wants his tools restored. He doesn't edit for years and when he returns to push his point suddenly he wants his tools back again. Please look into this, it would be grossly unfair if you gave him the right to overule me on this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Doc, admins get no such right and he is clearly involved in that dispute and would not be allowed to act administratively there. — Coren ^(talk) 19:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's well-understood by all admins that such activity would result in swift and sure response from the ArbCom and other administrators. There would be no point to it even if I had any intentions of doing such a thing, which I do not. A mop and bucket does not give me the ability to own any article. polarscribe (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Shearonink, Right, we can't merge accounts, so I did a usurp of Polarscribe. Dr. Blofeld, if he abuses the tools by acting while involved to block you or win a content dispute, I'm sure the Arbcom will react harshly and desysop him. I'm not giving him the right to overrule you. MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Even so, the context in which he is re-requesting resyopping in such circumstances disgusts me and I'm out of here in pure disgust that he is even being considered after what has happened in the time being. Ask yourselves why he suddenly needs admin tools, years gone from wikipedia. You make your choice but if I ever have to deal with this guy breathing down my neck and using his admin tools to take action over me on here..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You're asking me to violate policy. The RFC on desysopping, which I believe I opposed on other grounds, does not let me consider the factors you mention. I would be in violation of community policy to deny the request. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me, since when has the outcome of an RfC been a binding policy? Does it take precedence over the requirements to gain adminship, namely "appropriate approach and conduct as a community member"? Given the conduct and approach of the individual in question over the last couple of days, adminship would not have been given in the first place, but because he hasn't edited for four year, all of a sudden he's got them back? Adminship isn't a god-given right, and there needs to be a measure of intelligent oversight in returning tools to absentees, especially when their recent contributions and approach to the collaborative process have been somewhat questionable. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to violate policy. I'm asking you to try to address why you think he suddenly needs admin tools having not edited wikipedia in 4 years having only edited a single article he was involved in a dispute in other than "desperately need admins". Policy or not, do you genuinely believe he wants his tools restored in good faith, despite not yet having edited wikipedia? But should you restore his admin tools even though I personally believe it to be in totally the wrong circumstances I do request that he is banned from articles I'm working on and speaking to me as I believe he would abuse his power further down the line, unless he is willing to actually discuss problems without reverting and editing first. You voted him to be an admin and he hasn't edited wikipedia in 4 years, to suddenly be able to return is sort of like quitting an old job and storming into the office four years down the line and expecting to have it back straight away.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You've yet to answer the question of why I would abuse admin tools on an article in editorial dispute, given that the certain result from such activity would be a loss of those admin tools. polarscribe (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of abusing administrative tools on the disputed article in question, or any other. I would never block a user involved with myself in a legitimate editorial dispute such as this one. I would note for the record that Dr. Blofeld has repeatedly made personal attacks against me (including intimations about my location and this one where he calls me a "banned administrator" and an "arrogant professor." I have made a number of rhetorical assaults on the content in dispute, but I have never questioned Dr. Blofeld's integrity as an editor or made any ad hominem comments directed toward him, and I would request that he abide by our notions of civility and good faith. polarscribe (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your tone in edit summaries and in the article talk page comes across as most arrogant, add to the fact you used your IP address, then Polarscribe, then Travis accounts to look as if there were multiple editors supporting you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Asked and answered, counselor - I did no such thing, as discussed in your quickly-closed allegations. polarscribe (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld, your "disgust" is noted, but not really relevant to this request unless you can demonstrate exactly why the resysop shouldn't take place per the RFC noted by MBisanz above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This guy has not edited wikipedia in years, walked out on us. He returns because he wanted to assert an opinion of an article and reverted many times and left comments on the talk page, failing to grasp why his opinion was affecting the neutrality of coverage in the article. He has not made a single edit to an article or to wikipedia in years to suggest he even needs admin tools, so why do you think it is he suddenly has this demand to have tools again, not being active on here? Its to elevate himself to a higher position again and to try to gain support. In my opinion people who return after a long absence in heated circumstances, that should be taken into consideration. People who do so should at least be given a month's trial to show they have actually returned and actually need the tools and demonstrate that they are an active editor again. What's to say he won't swiftly leave after a short period of time again? He needs to go on trial for a good month, then make a decision if he really wants and needs the tools again. if he was up for RFA now he'd get blown out by the vast majority.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to misuse rollback in a content dispute and then object to someone else having user rights on the off chance that they might misuse tools in a content dispute, despite no evidence of them ever having done so. - SudoGhost 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that, but why you think it would be relevant to point out my use of rollback on what is request for somebody to have their admin tools restored, especially on a candidate who doesn't believe in ghosts.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevance? to this discussion?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that you and I once interacted excuses your abuse of tools against the very editor your complaining might abuse their tools. That's quite a point you've made, but doesn't excuse your behavior. - SudoGhost 20:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that, but why you think it would be relevant to point out my use of rollback on what is request for somebody to have their admin tools restored, especially on a candidate who doesn't believe in ghosts.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there, but when you abuse tools given to you, it makes it rather disingenuous to claim that someone else shouldn't be given tools in the off chance that they might abuse theirs. If you're going to claim that they shouldn't have tools because they might abuse them, and misusing tools is wrong, don't sit there and abuse your tools against that very same editor. Its relevant because you're doing the very thing you're worried the other editor might do, and that erodes your complaint completely. - SudoGhost 20:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having one or more extra maintenance tools should not in any way shape or form have any bearing on discussions. Just because someone carries a mop does not make them an expert on Mesopotamian civilization, or whatever. People must not be artificially intimidated in discussions. We reach consensus based on well-formed and cogent arguments, debate, pointing out fallacious arguments, and other forensics--not by force of will or fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam. Of course, there are times when argument from authority is not a fallacy, (where the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and consensus exists among said legitimate experts) but just because someone is admin on Wikipedia does not make them ipso facto an authority on any topic. -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• This user claimed that they were a different editor on another account (doesn't meet WP:SOCK). Talking in full capitals in an edit summary. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• That edit was made AFTER he disclosed his ownership of both accounts on WP:USURP. The threshold for denying is conduct such that it is a certainty the person resigned the bit to avoid arbcom removing it; capitals in an edit summary does not meet that threshold. MBisanz ^talk 20:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• That edit also fairly clearly means tags left by another editor who isn't Dr. Blofeld. In other words you aren't supposed to remove tags that another editor placed stating the article is disputed. He wasn't claiming to be another editor there at all. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely no valid reason to refrain from resysopping Polarscribe. There has been no evidence of any "cloud" or abuse of administrative tools prior to them being removed. Any future abuses (if they even happen) would have to be handled according to policy at that time, but as already mentioned here, we can't refrain from returning the admin bits because one person thinks the editor in question might abuse the tools at some future point in time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should an editor who rejected us 4 years ago when trusted to be an administrator suddenly have his tools restored after returning the following decade in the context of an IP editorial dispute. Do you think he would be here if that hadn't happened? He could be a saint , but returning in this context when he has not even edited an article to suggest he even needs an account let alone admin tools in 4 years does not answer why he needs to have his tools restored. The concept of desysopping in the first place is pointless if anybody can just walk back in here and demand them be restored as even if he's inactive he wouldn't be using the tools so it is pointless so say "you've been desysopped". People who are away from wikipedia for years without a legitimate reason, if the decision is made to take their admin tools away, then they should have to earn them again when they return. I am very sorry Bisanz that you voted on this and whoever it was decided to make it fine for somebody to do this and in such a context.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe I voted against it because I agreed it was pointless (or maybe I opposed it for another reason), but the community decided this would be the policy even if it led to irrational results and crats can only act within policy. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The user also edited on polarscribe before verifying that this was another account, and used the edit summary "registered account" after changing the signature of an IP, when they already had an account. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the signature of the IP because the IP was me, and I wanted to make it clear that the IP was not a separate editor! I was laying claim to that statement. polarscribe (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Erm, he didn't have to disclose he was Polarscribe unless he did something that could confuse people as to his prior identity. Also, he's stating that he registered an account, not that it was the first account he ever registered. MBisanz ^talk 21:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed NYCTravis/Polarscribe's contributions, and am convinced that the current user is the same user who left in a huff in 2008. In other words, I don't believe the account has been compromised by a new person. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why though does he now return and want tools, none of you are answering this question.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The community decided that question was irrelevant when it created the inactivity desysopping policy. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It's not our question to answer. If you have specific issues with an editor, you should take them to the appropriate forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to remove your comment. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the admin bit to Polarscribe as there have been no valid objections raised here (according to current policy). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NihonJoe has wiped out the entire history of Polarscribe's edits to the history of the Alcatraz article which had all of the edit warring and snarky edit summaries, somewhat conveniently don't you think? All of his edits made last night and in the article today have been wiped out. Concealing the evidence here is highly suspicious.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? As far as I know, I've never edited any Alcatraz-related article or done anything with the logs on any of them. Please provide diffs to support your allegations. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the revision history for the article you "worked really hard to produce from scratch" (as you state on your user talk page). I'm not in there, nor am I in the logs for the page. If you're talking about some other page, please let me know. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:FCYTravis has been engaging in childish vandalism and edit warring on the Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary article and clearly does not understand basic Wikipedia principles and objectives. Why is the sysop community restoring sysop authority to this user? Surely such an action throws in doubt the integrity of the whole community. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you have a problem with the policy, you can start an RfC and try to change it. While it remains policy, however, we have to abide by it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Note that I have full-protected the page. --Rschen7754 02:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Isn't the "policy is policy" argument a bit like the Nuremberg defense? Surely common sense can be applied. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Please don't start accusing 'crats of being Nazis. That's a totally absurd comparison. No one is going to die because of this policy, and no policies on Wikipedia prescribe offing people due to political or other expediency. Rules for various actions have been established by the community, and 'crats were elected/voted in/whatever you want to call it to pretty much stick to the letter of the policies. In this case, the policy (WP:RESYSOP) clearly states that as long as 'crats are satisfied that 1) the account hasn't been compromised, and 2) they didn't resign in order to avoid scrutiny of or sanctions due to their actions. It also specifically indicates that if they had their sysop rights were obviously removed due to inactivity that it is considered uncontroversial to restore them (provided the 2 points above are met). This case passes those criteria with flying colors. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
          • No offense meant. But "rules are rules" is an annoying argument when it leads to an obviously daft result. User:FCYTravis seems to be trying to convince the world (or himself) that ghosts are not real, and edit warring to make that point. My 7-year-old granddaughter says ghosts are not real but they are scary and fun, a much more mature response. I think she would be better qualified as an admin. Never mind.... Aymatth2 (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
            • There are processes in place to deal with the issues you raise, but this page is not part of them (in this case). If you have serious concerns, feel free to raise them to ArbCom. And if you think your granddaughter would make a good admin, then feel free to nominate her. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue this discussion as the policies are not going to be changed by a discussion here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So if an editor walks off in a sulk and decides ten or twenty years later that he wants to return, then there are no questions asked, no verification of their abilities, no recent editing history to judge their "appropriate approach and conduct as a community member"? PMSL - that's the biggest "jobs for the boys" stance I've seen outside the House of Commons or the Congress. I have absolutely no doubt someone will chant the admin mantra of "the rules are the rules" or "policy is policy", but when they are so ridiculous, so laughable and so open to abuse then they make a mockery of that which you are trying to protect. It's another sad day for Wiki that the mindless knee-jerk protection of the rules has flown in the face of common sense or intelligence. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Why is someone desysoped for inactivity? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It is the result of this discussion in June 2011. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this, a bit belatedly. One of the very last admin actions he took before leaving in 2008 was the deletion of his own talk page. Isn't that abuse of admin tools? User talk pages are normally never to be deleted, so using the tools to do it anyway on your own talk page is rather problematic. Fram (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will come along and nicely whitewash over all this for us though - and naughty us for questioning the "power in perpetuity" RfC (not policy, only an RfC). To gain adminship candidates must satisfy the criteria that they adopt an "appropriate approach and conduct as a community member (quality of interaction and ability to work with others)". It's a shame that this isn't also addressed for long-term absentees too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If the RfC to deadmin people for inactivity hadn't passed, my admin bit would never have been removed in the first place and we wouldn't be having this conversation. polarscribe (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone restored the deleted usertalk page? DuncanHill (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted edits and merged them with the current user talk page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll add to that - could someone please check all the previous deletions of his usertalk page (there are several) and sort it out? He seems to have been deleting as a system of archiving. DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at it, the previous deletions seem to be reasonable removal of some vandalism - I assume RevDel was not available at the time, so the more messy method was required. The only deletion I take issue with was the very final deletion. It's not that simple to restore though, as all revisions including the vandalism will be restored. Worm^TT(talk) 12:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is significant and libelous vandalism in my talk page history. I hope that was not all mass-undeleted. polarscribe (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• And has anyone bothered to read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive452#Unusual_action_by_admin_FCYTravis which preceded his inactivity? DuncanHill (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of questions going unanswered here and a lot of admins going awol. My reservoirs of good faith are evaporating rather quickly, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing's going AWOL ... this isn't a page that admins typically watch, and there's so few Buro's. The discussions linked above suggest that the original loss of tools may be considered to be "under a cloud", which means that automatic re-granting is not typically possible, as per policy. IMHO - if I were a Buro - a re-gaining of the tools would require a re-confirmation RFA. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, he went off in a huff when his use of admin tools in a content dispute was questioned, and abused his admin tools by deleting his talk page. He then returned to engage in a content dispute and ask for his tools back. Very poor call by crats to return his tools, he clearly left to avoid scrutiny of his use of the tools. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply BW. Out of interest, how long can an admin go awol and come back to get his tools, without any question as to his suitability? Cheers (and thanks for sticking your head over the parapet, where others seem not to want to!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's the pertinent question. In fact, I recently de-sysoped someone on their own request because they said that after not having the time to use the tools for a few months, they didn't feel adequately commensurate with the various policies etc which may have changed. The re-sysop here was technically correct, but it certainly looks like we have a case to answer in situations such as this with regard to the re-sysoping of long-term absent editors, and some re-evaluation of how or why such editors left in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Given the ANI discussion and out-of-process talk page deletion, are you sure it was a correct re-sysop? DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I meant purely from a "resysop-following-desysop-as-a-result-of-inactivity" perspective. Of course, a lot more has come to light which requires further analysis (as I alluded to above). I did mention above that we should be looking into this more closely ("I'm sure we'll take a longer, harder look now") but perhaps we didn't look hard enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• It took me less than a minute without access to any special tools to find that ANI thread. I would be happy to provide a masterclass to crats in how to "look at an editor's contributions" and "search ANI" if you feel it would be helpful ;) DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like you'd be an ideal candidate for WP:RFB? I'm sorry I didn't stick around here long enough last night to continue in the debate. The discussion was somewhat railroaded by threats of resignation and accusations of edit warring. When I say "look harder", I mean both "look harder" at the candidate and "look harder" at the processes that govern our resysopping. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• RM, I think that the problem is we both have looked hard—very hard—at this candidate and neither I nor DH like what we see here (please correct me if I'm wrong DH). This admin edit warred in '08 and attempted to justify 3RR violations with "but I was in the right". He then retired before the ANI was brought to a conclusion. He comes back and his first set of edits are edit warring, with the justification of "but I was in the right". (This behavious is bad for an editor: it's just unacceptable for an admin) He then comes here—after FOUR YEARS of inactivity, during which the landscape has changed considerably—and his tools are handed back without any circumstance even being looked into. The claim that this admin left his account in good standing is highly questionable and it appears that he is starting up exactly where he left off: edit warring. Will this admin be allowed to continue being an admin on that basis? - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I acknowledged that, I said yesterday we needed to look more closely at this request. I can't speak for Nihonjoe (or any other bureaucrat for that matter) but I thought at least one vaguely uninvolved 'crat should at least say something here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have to say that given the circumstances of the departure, in my opinion it was wrong of Nihonjoe to re-sysop - at the very least Nihonjoe needs to explain why the ANI thread and the talkpage deletion did not trouble him. I would expect a fairly high standard of scrutiny by crats when granting re-sysop. I would hope also that Polarscribe would edit his userpage to make clear who he is, and provide links to his talk page archives (as his previous method of archiving makes them hard for editors to find). DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have restored the deleted talk page edits as they hadn't been immediately apparent when I looked previously (he had been renamed, and the deleted edits were on the redirect from the previous username talk page). I also merged the histories of the two pages so they are now all together. This should avoid this issue in the future. As for the ANI page, I hadn't seen that until now (for some reason, it didn't come up when I did a quick search before...perhaps I had a typo in my search terms). After reading it, I can see why there would be concerns, and I think they may be sufficient to be a "cloud", though technically, the tools were not removed under a cloud as that happened for inactivity a few years after he took the self-imposed wikibreak. He did, however, go on his break due to the scrutiny found in that ANI thread. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I object to the idea that there was a "cloud" - you will note that I self-reverted my actions before departing and no unbiased reading of the ANI thread can be said to create a consensus that my actions had been significantly inappropriate. Nothing was ever brought to ArbCom. polarscribe (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• While the tools were not removed as the result of any "cloud", your actions were clearly seen as significantly inappropriate byt a large number of participants in that thread. Not being brought to ArbCom is a poor reason for thinking you didn't do something wrong. It sounds like someone telling people, "Well, I was never convicted!" Surely you can find a stronger argument than that? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks RM. Your approach and comments are appreciated. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am sure much has changed in the last four years since this editor was active in terms of policies, procidures and the outcome of RfCs (which are not hard and fast policies in themselves). Would it not be more applicable to have a trial period of a month or so on normal editing duties while they find their feet once again? It would allow a much clearer understanding of whether that individual met the basic criteria, including "appropriate approach and conduct as a community member (quality of interaction and ability to work with others)". Certainly, in this case, the recent attitude to a supposedly consensus driven approach left an awful lot to be desired and fell short of any reasonable standard of an ability to interact and work with others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about a "trial period", but as I said above, it looks like we need to take a closer look at this kind of resysoping. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Then don't allow them to re-tool if they have been absent for over two years, without undergoing an RFA and being put through the same process as everyone else in regards to "appropriate approach and conduct". Do you think there is another course of action, given the current set up is flawed? - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it may be that a time limit for inactivity can be agreed upon by the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. It may be good to revisit the policy and set a time limit for return of tools without an RfA. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree it would be worth re-visiting the policy. It would require notification of those who resigned the tools or had them removed for inactivity to provide a window where they could request them back, but the original idea who probably the product of compromise, not logic. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? The fact that the article in question from four years ago has long since been deleted with fire as a coatrack for pedophiles is proof enough, I believe, that the actions I took then were correct in spirit. In fact, the person who wrote it was then banned by ArbCom for advocating pederasty. You will note that before I left, I self-reverted the disputed action. The fact is that nobody filed an ArbCom case against me, there was no "cloud" and I was never threatened with the removal of tools. If you're looking to drag more stuff up from four years ago, I'm sure you'll find it. Sigh. polarscribe (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"You believe", yet the ANI report - and your improper blanking of your talkpage as you left - show that a cloud did, in fact, exist. Your attitude above really shows that you still don't get this project - but if you really think you do, go ahead, put yourself up for a reconfirmation RFA today. Please, because you don't deserve the tools any other way. It was sneaky, underhanded, and dishonest to re-request them the way you have, considering what led to your "voluntary" departure (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You're reacting much the same as you did in that ANI thread: basically "How dare you question my actions? I know what I'm doing so just drop it!" is hardly the correct attitude, especially when you were wrong in that case. You should have had an uninvolved admin review things and take any action they thought was necessary. You should not have done it yourself as you were very clearly involved in the dispute. Simple as that. No one is questioning whether the article should have been deleted. They are questioning your method of doing so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, I assume that now that you're aware that a "cloud" existed, that you have undone the erroneous and against-policy re-sysop? He "left" under a cloud, whether or not the tools were removed because of it - his leaving probably put a hold on any desysop RFC's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been undone as of yet. Current policy doesn't allow me to remove the bit except in specific circumstances (see WP:CRAT#Removal of permissions). If Polarscribe were to request the removal in order to undergo an RfA, then I could do it. The only other reasons I can remove it are due to inactivity and per an official request from ArbCom. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If you erroneously added the sysop bit to my alternate account, you would immediately remove it. You have erroneously re-added the bit back to an account because you missed the "cloud", and since the "cloud" is a valid reason for not re-implementing the bit in these situations as per policy, then you have full authority to remove it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There was an ANI consensus that I had acted wrongly. I acknowledge that, and I did act wrongly. There was no consensus that my improper actions rose to the level of desysopping. Nor was there any ArbCom determination that I should be desysopped or that I had left under a cloud. polarscribe (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus in that ANI thread to remove my sysop bit, nor did ArbCom rule that I left under a cloud. After being too bold, I recognized my error, disengaged from the situation and allowed community processes to work. My bit was removed for inactivity, pure and simple. polarscribe (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You left in order to avoid scrutiny of your actions, and in leaving abused the tools by deleting your talk page (again, hampering scrutiny of your actions). That is under a cloud. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was too bold in that situation, clearly. As the record indicates, I reverted my own (too-strong) action and disengaged from the situation. polarscribe (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Too bold"? No - you flat out broke the very rules you promised to uphold when you took the admin bit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Very clearly. It may be in your best interest to follow BWilkins' suggestion and put yourself through RfA again. Things have changed quite a lot in the last 4 years, and while your tools weren't removed as the result of any "cloud", how you left certainly makes it at least partly cloudy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be the neatest and probably most transparent solution to this. As it's clear polarscribe believes he has nothing to hide, a new RFA shouldn't be a big problem, and should be a good opportunity to demonstrate he's still up to speed with all the relevant policies etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought there had been discussion earlier this year to allow a period of scrutiny before restoring Admin rights? Looks like the 'crat arrived too early here. Maybe 24 hours would have been enough to uncover what looks like a cloud. Leaky Caldron 17:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is any allegation that I misuse the admin tools in the future, I consent to any bureaucrat desysoping me immediately without discussion. I have no intention of "going rogue." polarscribe (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with running in a new RFA, do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I do. For one, I haven't had time to make significant contributions since returning. For two, this has attracted all sorts of people who appear ready to pitchfork-and-torch me out of here for no other reason than "you did something four years ago."

I repeat - if there is any serious allegation that I misuse the admin tools in the future, I consent to a request being placed here for an immediate desysop by any bureaucrat pending a new RfA. polarscribe (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Then let me put this clearly: I seriously allege that you will misuse the admin tools in the future. There. Resign the tools, and re-RFA (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cute, but that's not what I said. polarscribe (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see the issue with RFA. If the community no longer have confidence in you then you should abide by it. If you can adequately demonstrate that you'll be a fine admin four years after your last edit, no problem either. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really need your consent for that, one way or another any misuse of admin tools could easily end with the mop being removed. A new RFA would reinforce your case that you are up to speed with all the policy changes that have happened over the past four years of your absence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a question of four years ago. The first edits on your return were to edit war, with the justification of "but I was in the right": it's groundhog day all over again! Allied to your attitude being as far removed from the consensus approach as possible, I'm not surprised you want to avoid any form of oversight. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Polarscribe - you clearly left with the intention of avoiding further scrutiny of your use of tools, and in doing so blatantly abused them by deleting your usertalk page. Go to RfA. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The level of abuse required to find a person ineligible to reclaim adminship is such that it is likely the person would have been desysopped by Arbcom had they not left or resigned. I highly doubt one can say there is a 51% chance deletion of his own usertalk page or even the out of process deletion of the article would have resulted in an Arbcom finding of desysopping. MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one question that needs to be answered by editors desysopped by inactivity is "why do you need the mop after all this time?". polarscribe has indicated that he wants to "edit articles and improve things", so I'm not sure on the real necessity for admin rights there. I think something like 99.5% of Wikipedia is available to be edited by anyone, so to re-appear after four years and request the admin bit back rather than just get on and edit articles is now feeling more and more suspect to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's a stupid system that desysops for inactivity without any requirements to get it back, but I believe it was done that way as a compromise between the "adminship is for life" and "adminship is not for life" camps in the RFC. Changing it to ask the question you do presents two problems: 1. People can just lie and say "I decided I wanted to go back to blocking usernames at WP:UAA" and there would be no way to require them to follow through; 2. What's a "good answer"? That seems like an fairly subjective judgment for a crat to have to make given varying views on the level of competence required at WP:RFA. MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Two different issues I can see instantly, (1) motive = why would an editor re-appear after four years and within a couple of edits, ask to be re-sysopped despite claiming they wish to simply go about improving articles (2) ability = after four years of absence, how could the community justifiably have faith that during that four-year leave the editor in question has kept themselves fully abreast of all the changes that are relevant to being an effective admin? Hence the conclusion that a new RFA is just about the only way to resolve this specific case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Point 1 is well-taken, Point 2 I strongly disagree with. There are some admins who have had the tools many years and used them a handful of times, but retain them by editing articles or editing infrequently. Once we start down the slippery slop of saying the mere passage of time destroys community faith, it begins hard to maintain that admins can keep faith when not using the tools on a consistent basis, which would discourage people from becoming admins unless they are willing to dedicate a signficiant portion of their editing time to admin work. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Point 2 is not actually your ground. Quite clearly there's an issue that a former admin has been resysoped after such a long period. The community, as witnessed here, clearly do _not_ have faith, for one reason or another, in this resysop, nor the precedent it appears to set. We have to face up to that. I'm not suggesting admins need to spend a disproportionate amount of time "admin-ing" but you surely must acknowledge that a lot has changed on Wikipedia since 2008. Expecting the community to accept an near-instant resysop for someone who hasn't made a single edit, admin or otherwise, in four years is really pushing the boundaries of what we're here to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I trust you are musing about a possible change in policy, not debating the handling of this case? While Dr. Blofeld felt those kind of questions should have been asked in connection with this request, MBisanz made a persuasive case that existing policy did not permit such an investigation. It may well be worth a community discussion of how to handle the next case, but I don't think that will be an easy task. For example, in the case of an active admin, who has a life event causing a voluntary relinquishment, followed six moths later by request for the tools back, I would be inclined to think the answer is simply, thanks, yes. On the other hand, an editor who has been away for several years is almost certainly not on top of current policies, as well as important unwritten conventions. In that case, I would reject a simple request, and urge a few months of editing followed by an RfA. Then there are cases in between those two extremes. A proper policy will take some thinking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• "MBisanz made a persuasive case that existing policy did not permit such an investigation": actually MBisanz made the decision based on there being no controversial circumstances regarding the previous life of the editor. However, if you actually read Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators you'll see that the guidelines are "If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." Given the ANI that was still in progress when the editor "retired", I'm not entirely sure that the account was in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances. If MBisanz undertook an administrative action based on an erroneous reading of the circumstances then it is an easily reversable step - what admin has done, admin can undo, surely. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Several things:

1. Nihonjoe did the resysop, I support his decision, but he made the decision.

2. The good standing standard is not one of if the admin leaves in harmony with the universe; it is whether the admin gives up the tools to avoid a likely desysopping. A thread at ANI regarding an out of process deletion does not meet that more stringent standard.

3. I did review the ANI thread prior to opining.

4. No, crats can't just go and undo a flag grant; it isn't a normal admin action. Crats can involuntarily remove the right only at Arbcom direction, for inactivity, or in an emergency. They cannot remove it because they later change their mind on an RFA close. It is an irreversible grant. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So your cock-ups remain permanent then? (and yes, I do see the decision here as a cock-up. If it isn't then there is something seriously flawed with your interpretation of the terms "good standing" and "uncontroversial circumstances"). Giving tools to an admin whose last edits four years ago, (and first edits on his return) were edit warring, talk page blanking, anti-consensual, arrogant and full of ad hominem comments is not a terribly sensible pathway and obviously does not sit well with a number of people here. I have no doubt your reply will be "but policy is policy", even if that happens to fly in the face of your own policies in the shape of "If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for a discussion of this matter, but accusing me of ad hominem comments in the recent dispute is pretty rich, considering that Dr. Blofeld first referred to me as a "newbie" "sockpuppet", pulled geolocation data from my (then-unregistered) IP address and later called me a "banned administrator" and an "arrogant professor". Please provide diffs in which I made personal attacks against Dr. Blofeld. I made plenty of remarks attacking the content he added, and perhaps those could have been worded differently. But I made no aspersions about Dr. Blofeld's personality, profession, location or Wikipedia history. polarscribe (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Who said they were against Doc Blofeld? The first two comments I had to make directly to you were about your attitude and to stop making ad hominems. The first concerned my "mind boggling" lack of understanding (where you really didn't grasp what I was trying to to do. The second was the one you accused me of being a sock of Doc, or vice versa. These are comments against an individual, not against an edit and that is not acceptable from an admin. No wonder you're too scared to go before an RFA - you'd not get past first base on the attitude alone. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how "mind boggling" constitutes a personal attack. Really? You're correct, the sock accusation (like the one against me) was unwarranted, overheated and I apologize for making it. polarscribe (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a comment on an individual and not an edit. That you don't understand this is concerning. Were things really that different four years ago? - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Polarscribe, given the history we now have, I do not see how you can credibly carry on as an admin without passing a fresh RfAd. Telling us not to have this discussion here does nothing for your position. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean that there's no place for this discussion. But it properly belongs in an RfC on the behavior of both myself and Dr. Blofeld. What's more, no part of my behavior in that case violated Wikipedia editing or administrative policy. There was a brief edit war, I backed away, the article is status quo and not in my preferred version. I have not abused (or even used) administrative tools on that article. polarscribe (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion here is primarily about you regaining the admin tools, not about your edit war with Dr Blofeld. You left to avoid scrutiny of your use of the tools, and in doing so further abused them by deleting your talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, then why did User:Schrodinger's cat is alive bring up the edit war? Someone criticizes me over the edit war, I respond to it, and you tell me to stick to the subject? Is this Kafkaville? polarscribe (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, you ignore the primary issue. You left to avoid scrutiny, deleted your talk page, and failed to mention anything about that when reclaiming tools. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not "leave to avoid scrutiny," I left to break away from an edit war. No RfC was filed, no ArbCom decision was made and there is no honest reading of that ANI thread which supports a consensus to remove my admin bit. I suppose you could file an ArbCom case based upon a four-year-old improper administrative action which I self-reverted when it became clear that the community opposed it. polarscribe (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom at the time wouldn't take cases where an editor had left (not sure if they would now). I do not agree that a consensus in the ANI thread for removal is necessary to prevent re-syssopping here. Also, you DID abuse the tools by deleting your talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The ANI thread does contain a significant opinion that deleting my talk page was acceptable, with the caveat that if I ever returned, it should be undeleted. I have returned and it has been undeleted. There was, at the time, no inviolable policy prohibiting the deletion of user talk pages. If that has changed, I accept that change and will not do so in the future. polarscribe (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed where you requested it be undeleted... Given your "pitchfork" comments elsewhere, it's pretty clear you don't take concerns raised here at all seriously. DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It was undeleted by User:Nihonjoe as part of the account merging process. I've got to go back through and delete a number of talk page revisions containing nasty, libelous personal-attack vandalism, but I have absolutely no objection to legitimate comments on my talk page. polarscribe (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you don't revdel anything on your own talk page, but instead request another admin to do that. Deleting your own talk page was part of the problem before, so doing it again is not a good thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter one jot if you did object. I know it was undeleted (as we've already established, I do know how to look at histories and contributions, and even page logs, and I have been paying attention to what has been posted here). DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't matter. But you don't see me redeleting the talk page, do you? As discussed in that ANI thread you're so fond of, those involved expressed an acceptance of the deletion as long as I was away. I'm back and so is the talk page. polarscribe (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't ask for it to be undeleted, that only happened after it was complained about here (and you expressed reluctance for it to be undeleted). It does not change the fact that you left under a cloud relating to your use of tools, and the effect of your leaving was to prevent scrutiny. Your judgement in that case and your behaviour since returning suggest you shouldn'r be an admin at the moment. Get some editing experience, familiarise yourself with policy, then go to RfAd. DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Support—strongly - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have a *chance* to ask for it to be undeleted - it was done as part of the merger process, as I understand it. I have not expressed reluctance for it to be undeleted - I simply urged caution when undeleting because there is significant vandalism in the edit histories which policy permits me to remove. A simple request for me to do so would have sufficed as well, but it was done before I even had a chance to consider it. polarscribe (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Oversight is your friend. It was done after editors here complained about the deletion - and should have been done as soon as you returned. Please try to keep up! Now, about your attitude - what did you mean by dismssing those expressing concerns here with your "pitchfork" comment? DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, I either don't see this as a slippery slope, or perhaps I do, but think the sliding down it is warranted. I'm a professional and despite working as a professional every day, my profession requires that I take Continuing Ed to keep abreast, and specific CE in professionalism areas. We have no such requirement here. There are admins who are rusty. We've ignored it. We shouldn't.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. We need a requirement for our admins to be up to speed. Four years out of the picture is a lifetime of change in Wikipedia terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much a believer that ancient history shouldn't be forever coming back to bite us. Reviewing the 2008 discussion, and the recent actions of polarscribe I don't see anything too disconcerting. That said I think there is good argument for a prescribed wait before returning to tools upon request - and also for clarifying what "under a cloud" means. I am cautious of such steps because it could present an easy path for those with a dislike of the returning editor to leverage non-return (hence careful clarification of "under a cloud"). In this case I think it is clear that several crats should have discussed this resysop, especially when the 2008 discussion appeared, and may have decided not to allow it. However they are also correct that the current policy (deliberately) doesn't give much leeway in their decision. This is because the community would otherwise have rejected the proposal for crats to manage de/re-sysoping :) (there is all manner of political history to this if you dig into the original RFC). The comments above about the deletion of the user talk page and reference to it as "abuse of admin tools" is patheticpoor rhetoric! Certainly it was out of process and questionable - but polarscribe has provided 100% adequate reasoning for it. Continued hounding over that matter seems ridiculous. ADDING: he has given his view, others disagree, as I note below the best place to calmly discuss this is RFC/U, not asking the same question over and over. Bottom line; if you think polarscribe's actions require community review I suggest and RFC/U followed by an arbcom case if warranted. Further discussion here isn't going to actually progress anything, it is just hot air :) If a crat reverses the decision now a whole other swathe of the community is likely to take up arms and cause equal amounts of heat here! In tandem to that, it is clear we need to discuss resysoping in more depth, and the climate may well be right for extending this process further. But making it about a single editor is counterproductive and unfair to them. At the end of the day, polarscribe does not appear to be the devil incarnate, so perhaps we could stop waving the pitchforks? --Errant ^(chat!) 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Indulge me, what "100% adequate reasoning" has he provided for the deletion of his user talk page? I must have missed it. Fram (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Above I noted that he says there was libellous vandalism on the page, and someone else noted that therefore the only way to remove it at that time was deletion. excuse me if I am wrong on that! EDIT: I see that the latter part of Worm's post passed me by :) sorry, I do still think it is a rather minor "crime" in the grand scale of things. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't the only way to deal with it at that time. I've had similar problems, and didn't get my whole talk page deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)He had repeatedly selectively deleted it, which was not a problem: but when he left, he deleted it completely, which was a problem. Whether it was a major or minor "crime, and whether it strengthens the opinion that he left under a cloud or not, are separate discussions; but it does look as if he indeed did not provide such 100% adequate reasoning as you thought he did. Thanks for taking the time to recheck this! Fram (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, struck/modified parts of my comment. The core of what I am trying to say still stands though. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• This brings back a question I asked a while ago and no one has a satisfactory answer. Why are the crats auctioning these requests without a 24-hour hold time, once agreed as ideal, to allow scrutiny of the request? We have an action that is clearly in error here, and where if the resysop had not been done in a hasty four hours, it could have been caught and prevented. No one will be hurt without the admin tools for a single short day while everyone has a chance to make sure there wasn't a cloud, and here, it sure looks as if there was one. Courcelles 02:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I had reviewed the ANI thread and decided it did not create a cloud (for the reasons I've stated above) and at least two other crats had opined in favor of restoration after their own reviews, so I would not call it a request that had insufficient scrutiny. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Please see my proposed modification to policy at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity vs resignation

I had understood, maybe mistakenly now I look back at old changes to the policy, that whether or not someone left / stopped editing "under a cloud / in controversial circumstances" was irrelevant when considering whether to restore access to someone who lost it due to inactivity. A distinction therefore arose between two situations:

• If a user resigns their tools voluntarily, they are entitled to request them back from a bureaucrat. But a bureaucrat can refuse and require them to have a new RfA if they judge that the tools were resigned in controversial circumstances.
• If a user looses the tools due to inactivity, the only ground on which bureaucrats can refuse to restore access is that they are not satisfied the user requesting the access is not the same as the one who lost it - i.e. it is believed the account has been compromised.

My recollection is that the discussion which resulted in bureaucrats being given the technical ability to remove admin access was strictly predicated on the fact that bureaucrats would have minimal discretion to refuse to restore the rights on request (could someone link me to it, I'm having trouble finding it!). The basis being that if people resign voluntarily, they know there is a risk they won't get the access back, but this is a procedural matter in which the user has no say. If my recollection is correct, I do not see a basis for faulting the restoration of the rights in this case. But if we are allowed to refuse on the basis of "controversial circumstances", then I am not sure why access was restored or, perhaps more importantly, why it was restored so quickly when a lengthy threaded discussion was ongoing regarding whether it was appropriate to restore the access. WJBscribe (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it was in the original RFC, but WP:ADMIN#Procedural removal for inactive administrators reads: If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances.

I had always read that to mean the same standard applies to both voluntary removal and inactivity resysoppings. MBisanz ^talk 14:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's the original wording of the policy, which is why I think I must have mis-remembered the RfC, but it would be helpful if someone could dig out a link to it... WJBscribe (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was here, and stated: if an inactive admin returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion, providing they left Wikipedia in good standing and not in controversial circumstances, and that their identity is not in dispute (emphasis mine). Legoktm (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! WJBscribe (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Taadaaaaa! Now, as per policy, the admin bit needs to be removed by a Bureaucrat. There's no ethical way that polarscribe can even pretend to keep ahold of it - notwithstanding promises to not use the bit. Time for the error to be fixed, and polarscribe to man-up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Excuse me. Wikipedia is supposed to be an environment where everyone feels welcome to participate. Please refrain from using sexist language like "man up" in future. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read my stuff above? Controversial circumstances mean circumstances that a reasonable person would interpret as likely leading to a desysop by Arbcom. Two out of process deletions that resulted in an ANI (not an RFC or RFAR) are hardly of the magnitude required. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Its never been established that there has to have been misconduct of such magnitude that a desysop was likely. As far as I'm concerned resigning / leaving when one's actions have been validly called into question can be enough to amount to "controversial circumstances". I would prefer to give those words their normal english meaning, which I think is rather broader than what you are suggesting. I am leaning towards agreeing that this editor left in controversial circumstances and - whilst to some extent a side consideration - I don't think the fact that their non-admin edits after returning have been questionable should be ignored. If there is doubt, in my opinion we should let the community decide and point people in the direction of RfA. If we suspect that the user would have trouble passing, then I think that points all the more strongly towards a resysop being the wrong decision. WJBscribe (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea that likely desysop by arbcom is required is bizarre and certainly not the intent of the policy nor how it has been applied so far. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Avi, Dweller and my own comments at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_18#Adminship and other comments here would tend to indicate that is how it has been applied. MBisanz ^talk 17:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your own comments there are quite different, allow me to quote you: "The definition of the term "under a cloud" has been taken to mean if a person resigned in order to avoid some process that has the reasonable possibility of resulting in a desysopping (RFAR, RFC, etc)". Reasonable possibility is a different concept from "likely leading to a desysop by Arbcom". Reasonable != likely and "some process" != ArbCom. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 Nihonjoe acted way too prematurely. There were concerns under discussion involving a long-time, good faith editor and simply coming along rubber stamping the request was disrespectful to those already in the discussion. There is a request above, by me and another, for clarification around the need to wait for 24 hours and the prior discussions that have taken place on that issue. Clearly a proper 'crat chat and further time in which the further facts relating to the request to emerge might not have resulted in a diferent outcome, but it would have been highly preferable to have had that opportunity. Leaky Caldron 18:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to point to this essay which I entirely agree with, by another 'crat, Wikipedia:Under a cloud, which defines the term as "in a manner that is seen as an admission of wrong and a wish to avoid continued scrutiny", which seems to me like the perfect definition. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And more stuff that I now notice, see Wikipedia:BUR#Restoration of permissions which uses a completely different wording and this, much more recent than your quoted example, discussion on this very board about this very issue, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_23#Defining_.22under_a_cloud.22 Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• What no one seems to be acknowledging is the word "MAY". There isn't an obligation that the admin bit be restored in a few hours or ever. It is allowed, it is not mandatory. The phrase "they may be resysopped" seems to clearly indicate it is not a god given right and the Crats have lots of flexibility. In all cases, Crats shouldn't rush when there is legitimate concerns, and should listen to the community, allowing us to provide you with information. The decision is yours, but that doesn't mean the community should be muted during the process. Why the Crats are acting like they are forced to resysop is beyond me. You are given infinite flexibility to apply common sense, and seemingly, the ability to refuse without even having to provide a rationale. I see nothing that says Crats must resysop under any circumstance. Please point to the policy if I'm mistaken. The community gives Crats an incredible amount of discretion, obviously we want you to use it for the benefit of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• You're quoting an ambiguously worded policy out of context. If you read the original RFC, it's abundantly clear that what people thought they were voting for was suspension not removal and that the crats would not have discretion but would give the tools back automatically on request.78.147.138.133 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Polarscribe in content dispute, uses tools to protect his preferred version

Request for desysop

With cool heads, some good faith and a brief, thoughtful discussion (far more productive than a dozen-indent-level drama-storm), I would like to request a voluntary removal of my mop and bucket, so that I may take a month or so to bring myself back up to speed with the project and what all has changed since I've been away. polarscribe (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Before this is done, I think it would be a good idea to have a clear statement on whether polarscribe will be allowed to regain the tools in the future without going through an RfA. NW (Talk) 06:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This request is clearly made voluntarily and there is no "cloud". polarscribe (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That is actually not for you to determine, but for the 'crats. Requests can be voluntary and at the same time under a cloud. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I withdraw the request. polarscribe (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I am making a good-faith, voluntary and drama-free effort to address a fellow editor's concerns. I guess that's not possible and there has to be even more drama. Sigh. polarscribe (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat confirms that my request is voluntary and uncontroversial, I will once again make the request. polarscribe (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I merely find it funny that you thought it would be up to you to determine whether the circumstances of your resignation were controversial or not. I hardly see any drama in this. Our trusted bureaucrats, which are specifically elected for this sort of situations, determine whether a request is made under controversial circumstances, generally when performing or before performing the initial removal, or in case that hadn't been done, before resysopping. To have the 'crats determine this is hardly new or a drama process, merely serves to help when the request to restore is going to be filed. I personally don't see why you seem so attached to rights you haven't used in 4 years, and why you seem to opposed to go thru a new RfA in the remote case that the 'crats feel you resigned under controversial circumstances but heh. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Polarscribe, there are two ways this can go if you have the tools removed for a month:

1. You are good for the month when you don't have the tools, and they will be restored
2. You are bad for the month when you don't have the tools, and there is a chance that you won't have the tools. It would be entirely wrong to restore the tools to you if you are disruptive in the time that you don't have them.

Again, after four years, I don't see any reason you need the tools if you want to contribute to the content. The return of Dr. Blofeld, the "most prolific editor on wikipedia" is in your hands. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Except that we don't allow bureaucrats to make such a judgment call - whether someone's behavior is "disruptive" enough to merit desysopping is a question for ArbCom. Either I relinquish them voluntarily and uncontroversially, in which case I have the right to request that they be returned, or I relinquish them "under a cloud," in which case I do not have that right. I see no reason why I would be "under a cloud" given that that the bureaucrats already stated I did not originally leave "under a cloud," nor have I misused admin tools since regaining them, but there it is. polarscribe (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That the crat's considers your original desysoping for inactivity as not under a cloud does not mean they would consider any voluntary desysop right now after what has happened as not being under a cloud. They might, but equally they may not, that is for them to determine. -- KTC (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll let them make that determination before making the request. polarscribe (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your retraction proves that there no such thing as "good faith" nor "ethics" in your vocabulary. Congratulations on your successful return (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Bwilkins and Blofeld here, and call it whatever you like, but something just doesn't look right in the request, and it sounds like a cloud to me. I'm particularly offended with the wholesale deleting of your user talk page. I would expect that if I did that now, I would be dragged to ANI (or Arb) and rightfully pounded on by the masses for clear abuse of tools. I wish Nihonjoe wouldn't have rushed since policy clearly allows waiting a day or two, and now the community gets to figure out how to deal with the ramifications, including the apparent loss of a prolific editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for a bureaucrat to confirm at the time of resignation that it is uncontroversial. That is something to be decided by a bureaucrat who considers a request for restoration at a later date. I cannot bind other bureaucrats by confirming that this resignation is uncontroversial. Polarscribe - if you resign, which is a matter for you, I think you should bear in mind that there is a real risk that a bureaucrat considering restoring your access at a later date would exercise their discretion not to do so and require you to submit a new RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Which returns us to an original suggestion: a re-confirmation RFA would have been the correct and ethical thing to do. Of course, polarscribe's actions/statements/behaviour since this all began pretty much were his own torpedo against this, and he knows it - otherwise, he'd have already taken the high road (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more than clear that he has no interest in such a solution. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the re-confirmation RFA is the best thing to do. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't one I've run across before. I do think the resysoping was a mistake, a good faith mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. The community has no authority to do anything here and no crat seems authorized (or willing, understandably) to reverse it. Is this something that needs to go directly to Arb for a possible overturn, since the community is powerless to reverse it within any policy? He would be better off restanding at RfA if it wasn't taken away by Arb, but it doesn't look like he is willing to take any risk, which itself is worrisome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• The more I think about this, the more I think Arb is absolutely needed. There isn't an alternative since he is unwilling. I'm hoping someone more familiar with Arb procedure will create a request, I will be happy to endorse it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Would an RFC/U where even more of the community suggested a reconfirmation RFA be better? There's nobody so far who has fully sided with polarscribe on this one - and that should say a lot and should really be enough incentive for a wise individual to say "ah, I get it now", rather than forcing the stupidity of a full RFC/U or ArbCom case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U is toothless. If the community decided he needed an RFA, he could say "piss off" and there is nothing we can do about it. If he currently has the bit and goes for RFA and gets no support votes, we still can't remove the bit. Even if he voluntarily drops the bit, and loses out at RfA, technically he can still request and get his bit back if a crat feels the original or subsequent dropping of the bit was not under a cloud (depending on how you read the policy, granted). Only Arb can remove the bit here, sadly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this looks like a genuine good faith attempt to appease the situation. It is not practical for him to go through another RFA because he's been absent for 4 years and basically on light of him having done nothing he would essentially be treated by many as a newbie trying to become an admin and wouldn't stand a chance. That would be unfair on him, although I actually think anybody away for longer than 2 years should be permanently desysopped but I respect that the community have decided that "once an admin, always an admin". I have no objections to him being an administrator so long as he goes on a month's trial as an editor to prove his worth why he was trusted with the tools in the first place and granted his rights back and we can put this silly ordeal behind us. I want him to prove that he has returned for the right reasons and has educated himself on what has changed on here in the meantime and that he genuinely respects the concerns of fellow editors in the way in which he returned to the project. It is up to a 'crat to sort this out and see that he is given a trial run without admin tools. Editing for a month is easy without tools, in the meantime I'd be happy to work with this editor on any articles he desires to try to patch up our difficulties to the constructive benefit of the project and also sacrifice my own roll back and privileges for the duration he is under trial given that Sudoghost has also questioned by own use of those tools. If the community thinks its fine for anybody ever given admin tools to return after a super long absence I ask that policy is changed if they've been absent over 1 or 2 years to go on a trial run when they return to ensure they have fully recapped and are aware of the current situation. I see no reason why after years of leave why this shouldn't be mandatory. In the long term, I'm sure if he does anything highly controversial as an admin he'll encounter difficulties anyway. Please sort this mess out.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that your idea isn't within policy. This is why Arb is the only solution if he isn't willing to voluntarily give up the bit. There is no policy on "one month trial basis" etc. It is either under a cloud and he is refused, or not under a cloud and he is given the bit back. Anything beyond that is left solely to ArbCom, who is the only authority (per policy) that can override a crat or strip the bit, outside of an emergency or volunteering. The "other accounts" are worrisome as well since they weren't disclosed nor admitted once the crat took note of his having "no edits". If I have to, I will file it myself, but I don't see being satisfied until Arb hears it and makes a determination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What caused me to walk out in frustration here is that my concerns over him were completely blown out and nobody seemed to genuinely care about the context in which he returned which surely few could deny was dubious. I think it was irresponsible the way in which this was handled, ignoring all obvious warning signs in favor for making a decision based upon a "policy". Resysopping requests should only be granted providing there is no objection or controversy surrounding it and editors away for longer than 2 years have to at least go on a trial period to ensure they are up to scratch and can be trusted again. Its common sense surely to ensure they are ready for it again. I understand the need to "follow policy" but in this case your policy showed itself to be absurd and potentially dangerous, and clearly in need of revision. I agree Dennis, in principle editors should have to go through a new RFA after being away 4 years, but the community who seem to be in desperation of admins are unlikely to agree on a consensus for them to have to do so.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• In the end, what we are stuck with is current policy, however, which is why I'm endorsing an Arb request based on the concept that it was arguably under a cloud, broadly construed, and the amount of time and lack of disclosure justify a requirement of seeking confirmation via RfA. We can change policy tomorrow but it won't apply here, so this looks like the only possible option under policy if neither the crat nor the admin are willing to act. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  That the admin is unwilling to act is proof positive that the resysoping was both hasty and ill conceived. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  It was also obligatory given current policy. I agree that this is proof that policy needs changing, though. — Coren ^(talk) 15:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  There has been a RFC opened to see where consensus is on this - see - Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Restoration_of_the_tools_(proposal) - current support is/appears to be so far, for admins for life whatever and however long they do or do not edit - Youreallycan 15:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree. It was obligatory to consider it, but there wasn't a rush, and no rule that said it had to be approved within a few hours. Waiting a day or two for one that is this old would have been prudent and sincerely, while I think the crat was acting in good faith, I think he really screwed up by walking in and restoring while a discussion was ongoing. Sorry, nothing personal, but that was just a bad decision to rush. Even if the end result would have been the same, now we are forced to take other action. Waiting would have let the other stuff come out, and a calm discussion could have taken place to determine if this qualifies as "a cloud" or not. THAT would have been within policy and the most prudent way to handle it. And yes, policy needs changing. Again, if someone else doesn't find a solution or file first, I will file an Arb request myself today, my first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/)I don't think we're at all desperate for admins, and surely not for admins who have no interest in wikipedia for 4 years only to ask for tools to edit content (???) and seems to disregard policy because he disagrees with them. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure, but the outcome of this was decided by a "policy" which the community apparently had voted for, for it to be perfectly fine for a desysopped admin who has essentially left wikipedia for good to return 4 years later in the context of edit warring as an IP and then demanding his tools during an edit war. So the apparent consensus is that its fine for this to happen when it obviously isn't. I'm not finding fault with Bisanz and Nihon personally on this, even if I believed Nihon was a little hasty, they are following what the community have obviously made a policy, I am just incredulous that the consensus on this renders that long departed admins don't even have to undergo a trial to ensure that they are up to scratch open returning. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What prompted this was a good-faith effort by User:Dr. Blofeld to reach out across our differences and explain his concerns. I, in turn, made a good-faith effort to reach back across that gap. We seem to have found common ground and understanding - a place to move forward from.

Since it appears that this request is creating more heat than light, I will simply self-impose a ban on my own use of administrative tools for a period of one month. I may request rollback, etc. through the usual means. polarscribe (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, but it doesn't answer the larger question of "cloud", which is my primary concern, and why Arb needs to look at this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was going to suggest - keep being an admin, but avoid use of any of the admin tools. Most new admins test the water a little carefully also, right after they become admins, instead of jumping right in and thrashing around. Stick to plain old editing, read up on policies and guidelines, many of which have changed over the last four years... Personally I think it is easy enough to desysop someone who acts out of line. Act appropriately and I see no problem. Apteva (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've made an alternate proposal at Wikipedia talk:Administrators regarding this situation in particular. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

At Arbcom

The resysoping issue that was discussed here previously this week is at ArbCom now. [6] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for desysop made on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case