Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Apologies for being so inactive in recent times, but I do still hope to be able to make a contribution both as a user and as an admin. I don't think you'll find any clouds over me. Can I have the tools back, please? Metamagician3000 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a 24 hour waiting period before the bureaucrats can resysop. Editor's inactivity was September 2011-November 2012, so is still eligible. --Rschen7754 08:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A little late, but I see no issues with this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going through WP:FORMER/I to mark the last edit and log of each administrator prior to being desysopped and noticed former administrator User:Luigi30. He was desysopped on April 1, 2012 as inactive because he was on the list at WP:Inactive. His last edit was on January 13, 2011, but he came back on March 31, 2012 (1 day before the desysop date) and made a log. Obviously his desysop was in error. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it was in error and would be inclined to revert it, but for the facts that he has failed to edit since then and will be inactive for a year within the next 90 days. More thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have also brought up User:Ck lostsword as an error as well in that case. He was desysopped in the initial round of inactivity desysoppings on July 3, 2011, but Ck lostsword made a log April 29, 2011. He has remained inactive and would have been desysopped in mid-2012 in any case. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to move this task from the Toolserver to Labs and hopefully take care of this. MadmanBot's supposed to remove administrators who've gone active again, but many of the Toolserver nodes (on which batch jobs run) don't have the libraries upon which MadmanBot is dependent (and therefore the batch job will fail that day). Given that my request for those libraries has been pending since March of last year, I don't anticipate that situation being resolved any time soon. — madman 21:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say I wouldn't have removed the rights from Luigi30 had I been aware of this. I check contributions and logs, but must have misread the entry as "March 31, 2011". I can see MBisanz's point about a removal likely to be necessary soon awyway but (as these desysops can now be permanent in such circumstances) I think it's best that I revert the removal so the matter can be dealt with if and when Luigi again meets the inactivity criteria. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. WJBscribe (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've listed him on WP:RESYSOPS and appreciate your analysis of the issue. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to fulfill this request? Max Semenik (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done bibliomaniac15 05:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd really like a break from being an admin and to go do some of the content gnoming that I used to do much more of before I got the bit. I've tried just ignoring admin things, but so much comes up that I get drawn into, I just can't keep away. So I would be grateful if someone would remove my admin rights for a while - I'm guessing it'll be for two or three months, and I'll ask for restoration after that if I feel I want to come back to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Hope to see you back soon, Boing. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Boing, you'll still have dozens of editors asking you for things...it's still going to be a distraction (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Then he can just say, "Well, I'd like to help, but I actually can't..." ;-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just redirect your talk page to Bwilkin's talk page, that is what I would do. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) great minds: "Well, I'd like to help, but I actually can't, so have a word with BWilkins - he's a very helpful chap" ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

lol ... Funnier because I think I stalk both you talkpages(✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm kinda warming to the idea, maybe I'll do it too.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't really want to encourage good admins to hand in their mops, but I have thought for a while that having some time off every year would be beneficial. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why this was called "Re-admin request InShaneee" so I renamed it "Desysop request Boing". Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How strange - looks like it got changed from "Request for temporary desysop" here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You guys won't believe how close I've also been to handing in the bit for a while. I've been sorely tempted, but well, someone's got to hold the fort... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tou can just give your mop to me. —cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 00:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to work consuming most of my hours in a day for the next few months, I expect to pull way back on admin duties myself, instead doing a little content work and only dealing with urgent stuff. (ie:unwatchlist ANI) I agree that admin need a break regularly, as well as a change in venue, to keep us from getting cynical. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have found that jumping to another wiki is a fantastic way to avoid getting burnt out at Wikipedia. Wikisource can always use more eyeballs on things. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Or come and write a book at Wikibooks instead. Or be an admin there; it is very relaxing in comparison. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 12:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not really burnout, it's more my own inability to stick to doing content work when I see admin things that need doing. But thanks for the suggestions - I'll certainly bear them in mind. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new process to allow for removal of adminship through community discussion. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to bring this particular usurp request here for wider review. The requesting user owns the SUL to it, has 7,000 edits on de.wiki, and has 2,000 edits on en.wiki. The en.wiki target user has 5,500 edits, but has been blocked since 2008 for abusing sockpuppets. Also, the contributions' history shows the blocked user made an edit to another person's talk page in 2009. I believe that edit was imported from de.wiki after the block was made. While I know we generally don't permit usurps of this magnitude, I'm inclined to grant it because of the requesting user's history of positive contributions, his ownership of the SUL and the target user's indef blocked status. But I'd like more opinions on the matter. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I too would be inclined to grant it. Attribution will maintained even if the name of the blocked user is "Griot (usurped)". -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with this usurpation happening. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Make that four of us. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be finding myself regularly in a minority these days, but I think it worth noting that I would decline this request at this time. The user in question has made good faith contributions to articles on this project that are unrelated to the reasons for it now being blocked. It seems to me rather different from a vandalism / trolling only account that could be renamed as a matter of course. I think the position on copyright and attribution of edits is too complex to be resolved other than at a WMF level, and I think whether SUL is widened this far should in any event be a global policy decision (and one to be properly announced rather than dealt with piecemeal as has happened to date). We need to know whether "collapsing the local user tables" (ie. as I understand it, ending the ability to have non SUL account) is definitely going to happen. At present, I also agree with those below who argue that performing this request strays too far into bureaucrats judging the relative "worth" of contributors. WJBscribe (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Widening the usurpation process

I'm going to repeat something that I said a few months ago at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 98#Making the usurpation process more flexible, in response to a proposal by User:Ndiverprime, begun after his failed attempt to usurp User:Ndiver (see also Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 25#Username:Ndiver).

I am extremely uncomfortable with widening the usurpation process; it puts bureaucrats in the awkward position of trying to decide which individuals have done more to 'deserve' a particular username, and which individuals can be declared second-class members of the community subject to forcible renaming. It also elevates a username from being a simple identifier to being something that an editor has to earn and deserve – and something to prized and fought over – which seems a tad silly and likely to lead to unnecessary and completely-avoidable conflict.

Wikipedia editors who want to use SUL across all projects have two choices when they find their preferred username in use on one of the projects. First is to ask politely if the other individual would be willing to accept a change of username; that was tried and failed here. Second is to consider a username change to a name that is available on all projects; this choice is almost always possible, but I get the impression that Ndiver has not considered it (or has dismissed it out of hand). Third is to accept the things that cannot be changed and move on.

In the particular case of Ndiver, the second choice doesn't seem overly onerous. He has made edits on only two projects as Ndiver (Global account info, 147 edits on frwiki, 74 edits on specieswiki), and just two edits not related to his usurpation campaign on as Ndiverprime on enwiki. His contributions have been thorough and valuable, but frankly they aren't that extensive, and he wouldn't have a problem (re)establishing his reputation in association with a new name. If he must have cross-project SUL, he can pick a new name, file the two rename requests, and be done with it.

In the case of Griot(-de), he has substantial contributions to only one other project (dewiki) as Griot, and he can request a rename there if he feels SUL access across all projects is sufficiently important to him. While enwiki's Griot was deservedly blocked, it's not clear to me that it was a vandalism-only or trolling-only account (indeed, it appears that that was not the case) and that it would not be appropriate for us to decide that he has somehow lost the 'right' to have his chosen name on his contributions—despite the ban he is now under. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as I feel that we should honor requests from editors in good standing versus those in bad standing. It's specifically the latter that has me convinced; if someone has been indefinitely blocked (especially for socking), I frankly don't really care about what they may or may not want. Attribution is still being preserved (so we're not violating their authorship rights), just not with the name they would prefer. It's a shame that they don't like it, but it's also a shame that they repeatedly used sockpuppets to disrupt the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

While Griot is not currently (and probably – though not absolutely certainly – never again will be) in good standing, prior to his ban his contributions were those of an editor in good standing and at least some those thousands of edits were, presumably, in good faith. Retroactively changing the name under which those contributions are attributed seems like a pretty dick move on our part, and should not be taken lightly—whether or not it rises to the level of violating the terms of the GFDL (which I would like to see a professional opinion on).

This good-standing/bad-standing distinction also seems to be a significant expansion of the established usurpation policies and guidelines. This would, I think, represent the first time that the 'crats here have seriously entertained the notion that a formerly-prolific account could be usurped—if 'crats want to carry out these sorts of requests, there probably should be some sort of serious, significant policy consultation above and beyond a quick discussion on this noticeboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the rename as being permissible under the five part balancing test of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#Handling_SUL_conflicts, point three of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#When_changing_usernames_is_probably_appropriate, and point two of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#When_usurping_is_probably_inappropriate. As I read those, SUL unifications are permitted, even if the target has edits such as to preclude a normal usurp. Also, I read the language of "determine the owner or claimholder" and "English Wikipedia bureaucrats will typically process requests to "usurp" unused or inactive local accounts made by SUL owners expediently and with relaxed consideration" to give crats broader discretion in SUL cases than they would have in regular usurp requests. I don't think any of us can give a professional opinion on the GFDL, but I believe an addition of descriptors (such as to "Griot (renamed)") as compared to the wholesale alteration of descriptors (such as to "Random user 57") would preserve alteration. Further, reading point b, subpoint iii of wmf:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content, if attribution is not required for very small contributors to an article, it cannot be an absolute rule requiring perfect compliance. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Our Crats have carefully handled plenty of these type of decisions since the introduction of SUL. I don't think this is, as you put it Ten, "widening the usurpation process", just continuing to implement it in the usual calm and considered manner, as evidenced by MBisanz seeking other Crats' input, as we do from time to time. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Before the current case, what is the most prolific account (by number of edits) that has been usurped without consent? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Target username has edits". Is 5500 not enough? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That line continues, "except to resolve SUL conflicts, when this may be done as a matter of discretion". --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be done to resolve SUL conflicts if/when discretion is allowed to be involved. I see no room for discretion here. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discretion is the whole point of having human Bureaucrats. This comment doesn't really make sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? They don't have discretion to do anything they want. I see no room for discretion in this case. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If they were "doing anything they want", they wouldn't have raised the issue and asked for input. The question is where is the fine line in a case like this, which is admittedly borderline. Of particularly concern is that any previous pointers (signatures) of that old "sock" will now point to that new account, which is an unavoidable byproduct when usurping any account of a former sock, regardless of the number of edits they had. Time helps cure this particular issue, and plenty of time has passed since the account was active. If it had been less than a year or two, this might be a reason to not proceed. If attribution is the only concern, it could be fixed with a link on the user page pointing to the previous account, although I'm not convinced that is required since the contribs will now point to the sock's new renamed account and only the signatures will point improperly. This seems to satisfy GFDL (caveat:IANAL). This wasn't a "real" person, it was a sock, so they were fraudulent to start with, thus nothing of real value is lost, and the license doesn't prohibit you from having signatures that point to the wrong user page. As the Project get older and bigger, we are going to see more of these cases, and the standards are going to have to change to accommodate the needs of the community. By current standards, this is pushing the limits a little but I would think this would be allowed within the discretion of the Bureaucrats via When usurping is probably inappropriate point #2, since permission is irrelevant and there is no way the former account holder has a legitimate claim to the name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"This wasn't a "real" person, it was a sock, so they were fraudulent to start with, thus nothing of real value is lost,"? Even if this was a sock account from the start (which as far as I know has not been alleged, let alone established), are you really saying that editing as a sock makes all their contributions "fraudulent" and "nothing of value"? Woah. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I said. The linkage of their singnature is all that is lost when usurping. That is nothing of value. Their contribs will still link to the new account, satisfying the license. You seem to be taking the comment out of context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see, in your line "they" refers to signatures, not the account. Anyway, I do not see this anywhere near a "border". An account with thousands of good faith edits should not be usurped. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The point, I think, is that while 'crats are allowed and expected to exercise discretion, that discretion is not absolute. In balance with the reasonable discretion – and benefit of the doubt – that bureaucrats generally enjoy, the community also expects bureaucrats to recognize situations where they shouldn't necessarily go it alone on their own judgement. I suspect that this might be one of those situations. Since my question above seems to have gotten lost, I'll ask again—what is the most prolific (by number of edits) non-vandal account that has been usurped without consent? Eventually, differences in degree become differences in kind, and it's no slur on your bureaucratic judgement to acknowledge that this situation is relatively unique and not carefully contemplated when the existing policies and guidelines were drafted.

Incidentally, I'm more than a little concerned about the tone of some of the remarks here, as they are shading towards a "They are not a Wikipedian and never were, therefore they deserve no consideration whatsoever" sort of ugly. I remain very uncomfortable with the idea that, no matter how much effort an individual may have put into this project, credit for their legitimate work – under their own chosen name – can be taken away years later if they commit a serious (even egregious) policy violation. In this instance, it appears that Griot edited Wikipedia since 2005, but he was not blocked, and he used no sockpuppets (at least, none that were ever caught) prior to 2007. Can we take away his right to credit under his own, unmodified, entirely-policy-compliant username for those two years of edits (close to 3000 edits) he made in apparently good faith? I'm not saying he is or would be a good editor now; I'm definitely not saying that we would or should welcome him back with open arms if he shows up again. But a very cursory glance at his contributions history says to me that he spent a lot of time making constructive edits before (and even after) he started socking. Going back and renaming him to User:Griot (unworthy) (oops, I mean (usurped)) just ain't right.

As a final aside, I'll also note that this has the potential to break things for anyone outside Wikipedia who has reused our content. An outside publication that reuses Wikipedia material in a GFDL-compliant manner by giving authorship credit and thanks to "Wikipedia editor Griot" will, if this usurpation takes place, find themselves – through no fault of their own, and likely entirely unwittingly – giving credit to entirely the wrong person. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a counterargument, just a curious aside: don't the GFDL attribution issues you cite occur even in the course of a simple rename? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the same problem could occur—but in the case of a voluntary renaming of an account the renamed party enters into the process 'eyes open'. For a simple rename, too, they generally have the option of preserving the original username's userpage as a redirect or other explicit marker that clearly notes the change of name. (The original username also isn't generally being handed over for a third party to use, as far as I know, but is effectively 'retired' from service.) The person who requests a simple rename is taking that action as the copyright holder for the contributions in question, and is presumed competent to understand the potential pitfalls with respect to attribution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We could have Griot-de put a notice directing them to the moved userpage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TenOfAllTrades. Let me put it another way: if this request goes through, the edit count consideration should be completely dropped for all usurpation requests. No reasonable person can look at a user with over 5,000 edits, look at the current policy, and think that it is in any way appropriate to fulfill this request. The weaseling and wikilawyering by a few users above is superb—impressive, even—but please, let's not be absurd: either change the policy or deny this request. The two are currently directly and unambiguously incompatible. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I just now was reminded that the account in question isn't a SOCK, but the MASTER, which is completely different thing as there is still a chance they can come back via WP:STANDARDOFFER. If this was a SOCK account, my opinion still stands, but seeing that this is the master, I think we have to leave the account as is. Sorry about the confusion. Blame it on my old age... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I think the policy should be changed to allow indefinitely blocked and/or banned accounts to be usurped in the case of an SUL. They have lost the trust of the community. WP:SECONDCHANCE is not an entitlement; we're doing them a favor. We don't have to do anything for them, so the least they could do is allow a more deserving user to take their username. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It would have to be changed to allow that. The problem is, you are essentially taking away every admin's discretion to consider STANDARDOFFER if you usurp the MASTER. And it is hard to say for sure "this MASTER will never be unblocked". We have had a few get unblocked after a while, and many apply to. There is one at AN now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it takes away admin discretion to unblock under the standard offer if he's renamed to Griot-en. He lost best claim to the SUL the moment the German Griot acquired the SUL and will never regain it unless he convinces a Steward to delete the SUL. While MZM argues differently, I do not read Wikipedia:CHUG#Handling_SUL_conflicts as applying a numerical threshold to renames which resolve an SUL conflict; they're granted presumptively subject to the five part balancing test. As I understand from my casual conversations with tech people at meetups, the plan remains that unattached accounts will eventually be forcibly renamed in a manner similar to meta:Single login specifications to provide that all accounts are attached to SUL and no account are unattached to an SUL. As to the Wikipedian concerns, Griot remains a Wikipedian regardless of what occurs here. We are merely adjudicating an aspect of his participation in the project; his username. Aspects of users' participation are routinely adjudicated by means of things such as WP:RFPERM, WP:RFCN, WP:BLOCK, etc. Given that Griot has not objected to the rename and Griot-ede has presented evidence of a better claim to the name, I don't see how any application of the balancing test, which is applied through the exercise of crat discretion, would argue in favor of resolving the conflict for Griot. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'crat discretion here. Policy is quite clear: "The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances, such as to resolve SUL conflicts)." Discretion is only allowed for "rare exceptions" in "some circumstances" to the policy that usurped accounts should have "no edits", that is, zero. Historically, that means an account with some deleted edits and a few live edits may at times be usurped at 'crat discretion, and not "presumptively". The part of the guideline you call a five part balancing test says if the answer to one or more of the above is "yes", the request will likely be declined. One of the questions is: "Has the other-project user made more than 25 edits per year of inactivity?"; thus the guideline places bounds on where discretion is allowed. Since the target account has almost two orders of magnitude more edits than that bound, the request should be declined per policy and guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the 25 edit requirement you quote is with regard to permitting an en-wiki user to invade the SUL claim of ANOTHER user, not of another user to be renamed on en-wiki to unify an SUL. Also, the guideline states: "If the target username has good faith edits which were not immediately reverted, and the account owner has not explicitly consented to the rename, then usurping is generally not approved except to resolve SUL conflicts, when this may be done as a matter of discretion" and "English Wikipedia bureaucrats will typically process requests to "usurp" unused or inactive local accounts made by SUL owners expediently and with relaxed consideration." Do you contest that Griot in inactive? If not, then a request to usurp him is handled with "relaxed consideration." MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Relatexed considerate" does not mean unlimited. It means SUL usurps can happen when the target has some edits, which is already an exception to the policy that the target should have zero edits. Yes, I would call Griot inactive, but there is no way I would call 5000 edits anywhere near a reasonable limit on "related consideration". Gimmetoo (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that Griot will be forcibly renamed when the developers complete mw:Admin tools development/Roadmap (regardless of what happens in this request) and it seems unlikely he will be unblocked, become active enough to convince an Steward to delete the SUL to win it back from Griot-de, and displace Griot-de, I don't see why we should delay Griot-de's request now. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate, please. Is there something on the roadmap that will prevent people from keeping an account name that they have if someone else tries to make it an SUL?—Kww(talk) 19:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The entry "Collapsing the local user tables" means that there will no longer be unattached local accounts of an SUL. Every local account will have an SUL to which it is attached and no SULs will have unattached accounts. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First, while I see that line in the table, I don't see that description. Second, if there were a conflict between a plan on meta and a policy on enwiki, what do you think ought to guide practice on enwiki? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got Meta confused with the MediaWiki wiki. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to remember to that BFRA Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 63... mabdul 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, after a conference with techs and crats, NOW I get a more full picture, that usurping in order to unify accounts is a long term foundation wide project that will eventually be forced on everyone anyway. In that light, I would support this name change, as it was unopposed by the party and is consistent with what will be the eventual outcome anyway. Thanks for listening and explaining that in the conference MBisanz, and JF. Makes sense now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Full unified login is not a long-term Wikimedia Foundation-wide project that will be eventually forced on everyone. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

And relying on MBisanz for technical advice is akin to relying on Malleus for civility advice (and I imagine both MBisanz and Malleus would agree!). Again, I'm impressed by the wikilawyering MBisanz is doing above, but it really is all bullshit. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm. Yes, it is: SUL 3.0 always has been a long-term project, and it's actively been worked into the schedule and prioritised (see "Tweak the associated maintenance scripts (in extensions/CentralAuth/maintenance) so that Shared User Login (SUL) can finally be finished and inform the communities about this.", although the schedule is out of date because things like Wikivoyage shot it to hell). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any information about SUL 3.0? Or SUL 1.0? Or SUL 2.0? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Stage 3, rather - I'll get James F to chip in and provide his knowhow. My awareness is limited to "this is going to happen and it's on James F's plate". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, right behind VisualEditor, FlaggedRevs, and LiquidThreads, I believe. It would be mighty generous to call "SUL 3.0" (which I believe you just coined on this page, unless you can demonstrate otherwise) vaporware. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, a mistype; Stage 3, as I've already corrected. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. Do you have a link to any information about SUL stage 3? Or stage 1? Or stage 2? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

See the comment above this one ("My awareness..."). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you apparently knew enough to try to contradict me (and you seemingly jumped into this conversation only to do so), but you're so ill-informed that when pressed for details about your unsourced assertions, you're able to do nothing but deflect and mutter about how it's "on James F.'s plate." Thanks for chiming in, Oliver. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Er. Yes. I know enough to counter the statement "it's not a long-term WMF plan", but not particular details about the how, why, when and who. And given that I linked through to the roadmap, it's not unsourced, merely not particularly detailed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, documentation here (I have no idea about the title. Brion has an odd sense of humour.) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing this. I recently suffered through having to usurp accounts in something like 14 different languages (in half a dozen alphabets); roll on the day when nobody has to do that again. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, I didn't rely on MBisanz for any technical information. I relied on others, such as Okeyes (WMF), who was a party to the discussion I referred to, and others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've got to say, I'm thoroughly confused at this whole thing. Last month, we had crats swearing on the blood of their mothers with regard to resysops that not only were they bound to adhere only to the literal word of policy in their actions, but that they couldn't even ask to change that policy if they wished it were otherwise. Now we have crats telling us that not only are they not bound by the literal word of policy, they're also not bound by, well, common sense, and that they can just sort of scootch policy out around the edges a bit if it suits them or if they think it helps aligns with a WMF-run initiative. Look, guys, I happen to think you're in your positions because you have judgment, and that you should be allowed to use that judgement, but you really, really need to decide whether you allow yourself interpretation of policies or not - because trying to work both sides is making you look less "standardized" (at whichever end of the continuum) and more "whimsical". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I read the language in Wikipedia:ADMIN#Restoration_of_adminship and Wikipedia:CRAT#Restoration_of_permissions to be considerably more narrow than Wikipedia:CHUG in the level of discretion they grant crats. MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• We also had a discussion that policy needs to be more clear on usurps. It took a lot of gyration to get to this point, and policy needs to be updated on it so we don't have to do this again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy says don't usurp accounts with edits. The policy gives an exception to that general rule by saying that with SUL unifications, the crat has discretion. The crats have been discussing that discretion in the section above. --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose widening -- not for concern of the blocked editor, but for concern for the rest of us. Usernames and contributions are confusing enough without there being an "old" Griot and a "new" Griot. With regards to the SUL unification, WMF will have to come up with some plan for name clashes anyway, so taking action based on that isn't a compelling argument. NE Ent 03:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I'm not buying it. Your suggested alternative to renaming the English Wikipedia User:Griot with 5,500 edits is to rename the German Wikipedia Benutzer:Griot with 7,200 edits, and this because "outside publications" that credit "Wikipedia author Griot" will have the rug pulled out from under them. How, exactly, is that addressing the problem? Because it looks like what it's doing is simply punting exactly the same problem, except with a larger number of edits, over to the German Wikipedia and dodging the issue. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think you are missing that the German user would still have the de:Griot account redirecting to their new name (if they want). They would be renamed voluntarily. The rename of the en:Griot, being involuntary, would leave any external credits attributed to a new user. External links probably aren't common, but I understand the concern.-gadfium 08:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You haven't thought it through. The situation is not asymmetric as you assert. Rename either account, and the problem of external credits to "Wikipedia author Griot" from content re-users for thousands of edits exists. Whether it is a voluntary or involuntary rename is immaterial. The problem that TenOfAllTrades is worried about exists, and it is always involuntary for the content re-users. Indeed, neither of you seem to have considered that anything crediting "Wikipedia author Griot" as an author is already a problem for content re-users, given that that isn't enough to identify a single author. All of this but-it-is-different-for-the-German is simply dumping the exact same problem onto the bureaucrats at the German Wikipedia, and not solving it in the least. If it's a problem for 5,500 edits, it's a problem for 7,200 edits. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Uncle G, I'm disappointed that you're picking at the smallest thread of my comment without looking at the entirety of my remarks—and I also think you're reading something into my comment that I didn't actually suggest. To be clear, I don't think that either the dewiki or the enwiki Griot should be subject to involuntary usurping.

  In considering the possible confusion associated with authorship credit given by reusers of our content, I would presume that someone looking at a block of German text would tend to look for the user on the German Wikipedia, whereas someone looking at a block of English text would be most likely to look at the English Wikipedia. And that external credit becomes completely unambiguous if the outside re-user of content provides a userpage URL – or even just specifies User:Griot versus Benutzer:Griot – but is completely broken by an involuntary rename and usurp. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • "he can request a rename there if he feels SUL access across all projects is sufficiently important to him" is not the smallest thread of your comment. It's the thing that you came in on, right at the start of the discussion, as the direction to take. Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Widening the process is just a bad idea. If the WMF wants to force renames as noted above, then there's little we can do when the time comes. Let's worry about the poison when it's set before us, not go about mucking in the lab before our time. Decline the usurp and any like it, and you can cite what we currently have written to back it. --Nouniquenames 06:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Decline the usurp request. Griot was for a long time and a large number of contributions, a valued Wikipedian. In this environment where identity is little more than a pseudonym, Griot's claim should be respected, subsequent misbehaviour notwithstanding. Do not go down the path of deciding relative worthiness of past editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think basing a decision on the possibility that at some point in the future SUL 3.0 (catchy name) will be implemented is wise or sensible. This has been on the to-do list for so long and Mz's right in pointing out how faint the possibility of its deployment seems to look; maybe we will get it eventually, but let's think about that *then* and not now. I also don't think that forcibly renaming a user with 5.5k edits is a good idea. It is not a sock, it is not pure vandalism or other meaningless content. It could come back under a standard offer or appeal to the BASC. And regardless of what he ended up doing, it's worth noting that he was clearly passionate about this project (I find socking to be prima facie evidence of passion for Wikipedia :P)and for a time a productive contributor. Disruptive behavior is ground for a block, but it shouldn't be grounds for lessening one's past useful contributions. I am pretty sure nobody would be arguing for this if the user wasn't blocked, SUL or no SUL, and I find it sad that we would rename a user just because he ended up not following our rules. To give you another example, if there was a Malleus on dewiki, older than ours, and our Malleus ended up being blocked at the time of the request, should be agree to rename him? Unthinkable I imagine. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, that's not the whole story, so I think that slippery-slope example doesn't quite fit. It's not just that they're blocked, it's that they're blocked, haven't used the account in a long time (almost five years), and haven't raised an objection to the rename. I would imagine that without all three of those criteria, nobody would have considered the request.

  That said, I don't think this is a great idea without explicit permission from the previous owner. If we can't contact them (and posting to the talk page of someone who has likely not logged in for almost five years doesn't count at all), how will they know that their account name has changed? How will they know what the new one is? If this rename goes through, then when (and if) they try to log in next, the login will fail,m because the password has changed. What do they do next? I'd put good money that they won't check the user and user talk pages without logging in first. This guy doesn't have email enabled, so not being able to email them this information is a clear deal-breaker for me. For situations like this in the future, I'd think a response from the owner that at least acknowledges what their new account name will be without objection should be required. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've already said I oppose usurping Griot's account. But does anyone have the answer to 10's question: what is the most prolific (by number of edits) non-vandal account that has been usurped without consent? Because if the answer is more than a couple dozen edits, then I think the policy needs to have a clear limit on what usurps are subject to discretion, and what usurps are simply not considered. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  655? I checked the rename log for 2010/2011 and that was the highest I found. I can't tell if it was a consented rename but it looks like it wasn't QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  I find that disturbing. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Oddly, I'm not sure that was done for SUL unification. There is still no SUL for that name. Even if we assume that the requesting user is the holder of the name on enwikiquote, that account has only 414 edits - i.e. fewer than the usurped enwiki user who would have had the best claim to the global name at the time of the rename. I would have expected the request to have been declined, but maybe I'm missing something. WJBscribe (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dweller informed me kindly on this discussion. So, some remarks from the user, requesting the usurpation. At first, remarks to two points in the discussion:

• Yes, the edit on User:Saehrimnir/Julia_Stemberger of 2009 by 'Griot' is an edit of the German WP, imported here. (In the German WP there are some edits too, attributed to me, which have their origin in the English WP and are done by the (English) Griot. There seems to be a little problem...)
• Yes, the (English) Griot is/has been a constructive user. As WJBscribe wrote, he "has made good faith contributions". His account is "rather different from a vandalism / trolling only account". He only made a serious error at last. (And it should not be an argument here, that he has not raised an objection to the rename – most probably, he is unaware of this request.)

I was aware, that my request isn't a simple one, but I was unaware, that it's the first case with that number of edits of the account, wanted to usurp. So, may the usurpation be justified or not, it would be unwise, I think, to decide on it now. There seems to be the need for more discussion on the way to get SUL accounts, if conflicting accounts exist.

In this situation, it would be foolish, to hold up my usurp request. WP:USURP gives no standard way to cancel such request. Simple deletion may be inappropriate, so I ask someone, to declare it as cancelled. I hope, the effort invested here by a lot of users, is not wasted, but has given some insight in a real problem. Thanks, --Griot-de (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I will go ahead and cancel your request on the usurp page. I appreciate your patience with this process and am sorry that this could not have been a more straightforward case that we could have assisted you with. 28bytes (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• In reference to the improper attribution issue, I encountered that in 2010, when edits *I* have made on en.wp started showing up on de.wp for Benutzer:Horologium (who is *not* me). (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 79#SUL issue is the thread in question.) A bug was generated on bugzilla ([[bugzilla:24686), but it's apparently not a priority (low enhancement). Those of you who are worried about attribution issues related to a banned user might want to take a look at fixing that, which involves someone who has not edited in over five years receiving attribution for my edits. The number of misattributed edits is now up to 14, and will likely continue to rise until someone over at de.wp develops the intestinal fortitude to enable SUL for someone who holds the name in every other project except for that one; it's being held up by somebody is not active or reachable (he has disabled e-mail access on both w:de:Benutzer:Horologium and User:Horologii (his account here on en.wp, chosen because I had already started User:Horologium a few months previously). I think that might be more relevant than worrying about attribution on Wikipedia scrapes for someone who has been kicked to the curb for abusive behavior. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@QU: No, It was at least the nearly 11k from N (talk · contribs) (see [1]) mabdul 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See, I assumed it must have been in the dim / distant past or everyone would have remembered... so I looked forward from 2009 to 2011. My mistake! Thanks QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 23:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a forced usurpation of an account with edits. It looks like a user with 11k edits asked to change user names, then later someone else asked to usurp the old name (now with 0 edits) and was given it (seemingly with permission of the user who formerly used it). What about this story am I missing? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines

I am little concerned about this page being used to justify particular practices. There is an inherent circularity to doing so. The page was created by bureaucrats to document how we exercised our discretion. The page has never had significant community input. It was originally written by Deskana and me back in 2007. The parts dealing with SUL were largely added by Xeno (then by far the most active bureaucrat dealing with usurpation requests) in February 2011. Again, I think this reflected his practice, rather than following from any wider consensus finding discussion. There's nothing wrong with us having a guideline page recording how we do things, but we need to be a little careful how we use it given its lack of wider community scrutiny. The discussion above suggests that the SUL parts may not reflect how the community would like us to exercise our discretion and I think the question of when "inactive" accounts that have made valuable contributions in the past should be usurped for SUL unification warrants a broad community discussion. My efforts to have one in the past (e.g. Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 10#Modification of usurpation practice for SUL requests) haven't generated much interest, but it seems that a consultation on this question now may enjoy significantly more input. I think we should have one. WJBscribe (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with many of the points made above:

1. No rename or usurp policy has ever had widespread community input but rather has been developed primarily as a codification of the rationale 'crats active in renames have followed in their own decision-making.
2. The permanent attribution of valuable contributions is a major motivating factor for some, perhaps many, Wikipedians. We undermine it at our peril.
3. Rename policy as currently implemented gives greater weight to the goals of the individual requesting a rename than it does to the goals of the broader community of Wikipedians.
4. The policy also prioritizes the wishes of current users over the integrity and transparency of the historical record. If you don't believe this, try following a major arbcom case from several years ago -- some of the arbs and many of the case participants have been renamed leading to a profusion of dead links.
5. Part of the problem is that historically it took only one 'crat to rename but a consensus to refuse. This led to the facts on the ground supporting more renames than consensus would dictate. It is 'crat culture to avoid disagreeing with other crats, which has contributed to the problem.
6. I do not believe 'crats have, as a group, sought out a broader role, though historically a handful of 'crats became 'crats specifically to work on renames out of a belief that renames should be performed routinely upon request.

I would be happy to contribute to any policy discussions that arise and will follow the relevant pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Background

This summary reflects the opinion of Dweller, only, not necessarily any Crat who signs the statement. It explains why I took the unusual step of organising a Bureaucrats' statement. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We've recently had some unusual drama at BN. Crats have been disagreeing on what policy/guidelines say. Furthermore, there's been an unpleasant tang in the air that implies that Crats have been trying to expand their powers.

To my mind, the whole affair has rather undermined our position as careful and considered assessors and implementers of consensus. The statement is designed to help address this.

The statement I put together was intended so that Crats from both sides of the discussion could agree to it. I therefore posted at the talk page of every current Bureaucrat. One small amendment to drafting was suggested and incorporated. This process was done onwiki - we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV).

Some Bureaucrats are inactive, or not up to speed with events here. That's absolutely fine. I deliberately worded the statement as one that represents the views of individual Crats, who have shown their support by signing. It is not an en-bloc statement that reflects the views of the whole group. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bureaucrats

1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed:

• Dweller (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• 28bytes (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• WJBscribe (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Avi (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Opposed:

• Maxim_(talk) 03:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I disagree with trying to codify rules for every possible outcome. Bureaucrats are chosen for good judgement and should use it to resolve difficult cases. Unfounded accusations of a power-grab are hyperbolic and much consideration to such insinuations should not be given.

Discussion

I find myself unable to sign this due to disagreeing with some of the first few points. However, I support the overarching principle behind this; we need the documentation for renaming to be updated based on community consensus so that we're clear where we stand. I also echo the thanks that were extended to Griot-de for withdrawing his request to prevent further complications while we consider the issues. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I also find myself unable to sign this for a few reasons. My inactivity precludes me from fully knowing what has been going on as of late, and I would require myself to re-read any and all documentation before returning to the realm of bureaucracy. That being said, if there is poor word choice in the documentation that is causing confusion, creating undesired loopholes, etc, then I'm all for fixing that. I do know that I am not "unhappy", nor can I agree with item 4, as presently written, as it implies that bureaucrats are, in fact, trying to widen powers but that attempt did not cause the issues (that is to say, that the issues were caused by something else despite bureacrats trying to widen powers). It may be my inactivity causing me not to see what's going on behind the scenes, but I am unaware of any individual or group making an effort to widen bureaucrat powers in any way. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with everything Useight said, including the inactivity stuff, which is largely why I'm not signing this either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons I explicated here, I too cannot sign this. I do agree that this whole affair has shown how excessively convoluted (or maybe even bloated?) the rename process can be, and definitely Griot-de deserves our thanks for his withdrawal. Not necessarily opposed to the contents of the statement (besides #3 and 4), but I still question the need for a formal "crat statement." bibliomaniac15 20:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-Bureaucrat Discussion

For what it is worth, I think having these discussions is necessary sometimes. I don't think the community expects our Bureaucrats to be mindless drones or always agree. The fact that a discussion took place shows we need to refine policy as a community. Granted, you don't want to have these kinds of discussion every week, but this is an unusual period, the end of a year, the start of new policies, and some unusual requests. While this causes a little pain, sometimes pain is needed for growth, and the discussions give the community a chance to be heard, so a consensus can form over time. I haven't seen anything that I would think is any Bureaucrat trying to broaden their powers. If anything, the fact that these issues have been raised here instead of being acted upon unilaterally demonstrates that the Bureaucrats are sensitive to the expectations of the community and trying to NOT overstep their authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed at the rather touchy response that some of the 'crats are having to a frank – but not incivil – discussion about the scope of their authority and responsibilities with respect to usurpation requests. In response to Maxim's comment, I'm at a loss to find anywhere in the relevant discussion where anyone asserted that the 'crats were engaged in some sort of "power grab". At worst, it was suggested that granting the request would overreach the discretion that 'crats were allowed on this issue, particularly given that the underlying technical and policy rationales for granting such requests were found to be more than a little fuzzy. If anything, I got the impression that participants in the discussion felt that allowing the usurpation request would represent an entirely inadvertent expansion of bureaucrat authority. To call it a "power grab" would be nonsensical since it seems apparent that (at least) the first few 'crats to comment on the request had no doubt that the decision already fell within their permitted discretion.

For what it's worth, I'll take some of the blame for the perhaps-ambiguous reference to "widening the usurpation process". In part, that phrase was there because I was quoting a previous, months-old discussion in which a non-'crat had made an explicit request to widen the process. Even then, "widening" doesn't equate to "power grab"; as I said, I think there was a good-faith misunderstanding about the level of discretion permitted by the community in large usurpation requests—perhaps because we've never had a discussion about such large usurpations, as they just haven't (as far as I know) come up before. The whole "widening" phrasing got extra attention and airplay because a bureaucrat decided to separate out my comment and put it under a big, bold "widening the usurpation process" header, for no obvious reason: [2].

To both Maxim and Dweller in particular, I think you're reading an insinuation of bad faith into the discussion that just wasn't there—and I'd really appreciate it if you could avoid painting editors' reasoned expression of disagreement as something more sinister. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply properly when I'm under less RL time pressure. It's close to midnight here and I've given a fair bit of time tonight reading, rereading and thinking about the RfA, time that I couldn't really afford. It may take me a day or two to get back. But I think in the meantime it might be worth you rereading the thread in its entirety. It's also worth reflecting on how Crat "touchy"ness, as you put it, may have been influenced by the recent ArbCom case. --Dweller (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss to find direct accusations of a power grab in the original discussion. I was merely responding to Dweller's statement, e.g. "there's been an unpleasant tang in the air that implies that Crats have been trying to expand their powers". Perhaps I should have been clearer and more to-the-point in my original opposition to the statement, by saying that this all has blown into a tempest in a teapot. Disagreements on such matters has happened before and will happen again, but they can be resolved with good judgement and cool heads. Fiddling with an infinitely increasing stack of contradictory rules or throwing around insinuations is not part of solution—it's part of the problem. Maxim_(talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Maxim. I read your comment that "Unfounded accusations of a power-grab are hyperbolic..." to mean that you believed such accusations had actually been made. In light of your clarification I can see, with all appropriate irony, that I was perhaps reading too much into what you wrote. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take your time, Dweller. This is far from urgent, and it wasn't my intent to poke you with a stick while you were tired and irritated. (I wasn't aware of an ArbCom case that had a bearing on usurpation or 'crats, nor was I following the current 'exciting' RfA discussion. I guess it never rains but it pours.) And yes, I did re-read the original discussion – in full – before I posted my remark above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I updated the finaltally template with a new feature, unless the parameters are given, finaltally can now automatically write the final tally in. I hope this makes closing somewhat easier for you guys.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, good sir. -- Avi (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Did anyone else ever notice the morbid undertones in the name Template:Rfatally?--Dweller (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And I like the morbid undertones as admin work is enough to kill off some people, so I find it appropriate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi, one year past, some cool down went by, mine and WP's (strange that it may sound that WP has 'cooled down' - but in a sense it did) and... well, given that I've found myself editing for a while now, why not get back to helping a little bit more, even if at half speed for now? So, I request that, following my voluntary resignation from a year ago, someone resysop me, please. Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• This admonishment about logged-out vandalism happened about six months before Nabla resigned his/her tools. Nabla, would you be willing to comment on the extent to which you've (as arbcom advised), re-familiarized yourself current policy, and the extent to which you intend to focus (as arbcom recommended) on starting with uncontroversial admin tasks if you regain your tools? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• My thoughts: it was a completely voluntary desysopping, so Nabla is entitled to regain the tools after the waiting period. In the interest of full disclosure, I did ask Nabla to step down as an admin due to the vandalism, but the bit removal was completely unrelated to that incident. 28bytes (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Thank you, I was to point out just that, and I hope WP honours it compromises. Anyway, I may clarify that I always kept an interest in policy and always kept on reading here and there - and mostly they don't change that much, nor that fast - and I participate in the occasional related discussion; so I am reasonably up to date, I presume. Also I surely am not starting a blocking rampage, actually I have veeery few (un)blocks. And I rarely closed tight XfD, and I don't plan to start now. Quite simply I wanted to help, low profile, as I did for years. - Nabla (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Since the ArbCom case was fully adjudicated and they felt an admonishment was sufficient, I'm thinking the crats can't hold that against him. He admitted guilt before the case, didn't avoid, and participated fully and completely. The voluntary desysoping was due to SOPA/political actions by Wikipedia, which was unrelated to the ArbCom case. I don't see anything barring resysoping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• 24 hours regardless :) -- Avi (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Dennis says, Arbcom reviewed his behavior long before his desysopping and didn't desysop for it, so we should not usurp Arbcom's role and attempt to substitute our own judgment for theirs. Looking to the time of his desysopping, I see no evidence that it was precipitated by an urge to avoid scrutiny of his conduct. As a further persuasive factor, Andrevan's comment at the desysopping in favor of re-granting is probabtive as a credible present sense impression, but obviously not controlling. Since the desysopping, I do not see any behavior which would preclude resysopping. Therefore, I think he should be resysopped after 24 hours. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-crat opinion) I'd agree with the above, similar to the other ArbCom-related one in December although this was less severe. --Rschen7754 02:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-crat opinion) I can't say that my interactions with Nabla have always been positive, but as none reflect upon his admin work, I see no reasons to oppose a reinstatement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• I see no issues which would prevent return of the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Done. 28bytes (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you (all). I do not intend to be too active, but now I may help a little further and I hope I can. As I wrote in my talk page days ago: "Back on Christmas I was talking to one of my nephews [not a boy, he's nearly 30 y.o.], about WP being some mess in the backstage, often confusing, a battleground; but he recalled me that from a reader (his) point of view WP is nevertheless awesome. And it IS. Both. Messy and awesome." And that is why I am here, sometimes angry, sometimes devoted, sometimes hiper-active, some times absent, it's for him, and all those which know that WP is awesome, and for us insiders that know that and also that it is kind of a miracle. I probably should be using (all) my time elsewhere, but I simple must spend some of it here. I bet most of you understand that. And mopping, getting the corners nicely clean and shiny, is probably the thing that fits my available time and personality. So I hope I'll be able to do just that. Again, thanks - Nabla (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note to self: I am a genious when it comes to pick a simple deletion just to start with :-) I know this is not the administrators noticeboard, but it somehow feels like the right place to ask for a helping hand, in this case. Please check: User talk:Nabla#Template:Tv.com. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

you've got mail 3 e-mails sent requesting account vanishing as I am leaving Wikipedia forever, but no response thus far. Does the process usually take more than a week or two? Please advise. Lenny Kaufman ^talk 10:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be a little patient. All of us have lives outside of Wikipedia, and your first of the three messages was sent almost 2 days ago. Three email messages and two posts here is a little excessive. As it is, it looks like my reply to your message didn't get sent and only got saved as a draft. I've now corrected that. Please keep all further correspondence via email. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 11:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• No kidding. Vanishing is rare to begin with, and there are few people who would realistically qualify for full-bore RTV - even if leaving Wikipedia forever. It's a process. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. I received your e-mail and responded, and will keep all future correspondence in the appropriate venue. Lenny Kaufman ^talk 23:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple we frequently get IPs requesting renames because they don't read the instructions and see they need to log in to request a change so that we can verify the own the account. Over at WP:CHUU this is less of an issue because IPs can log into request certain SUL-related renames. I thought about semi-protecting CHUS, but realized that would stop unconfirmed accounts from editing. Would it be an acceptable use of the Edit Filter to prevent IP editing on CHUS? MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Do they do this frequently enough that it needs a software solution? We couldn't semi-protect it, because brand new users are often told to change their promotional or offensive username, and last time I was active with edit filters it was a real struggle to pare them down so that we didn't hit the condition limit (and thus let through bad edits.) It looks like the condition limit is getting hit 4% of the time now. Maybe an edit notice? 28bytes (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the condition limit works, but would adding one page actually increase the burden on it? Could the edit notice be limited to IPs only? MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Whenever an edit is made, the software tries to run through all 500+ of the edit filters to check to see if the edit is disallowed, but it will only perform a pre-set number of checks; once it hits that limit, any filters it hasn't checked yet simply won't be checked for that edit. So adding another edit filter increases the number of checks that may be skipped, although the exact number depends on how complex the filter is. (Ideally the WMF would improve the hardware and software so that more checks could be performed in the same amount of time and we wouldn't have to worry as much about the condition limit, but that's probably a discussion for another page.) 28bytes (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, would it be possible to toss our filter on the end of the 500 so it would be the first one to be dropped if the condition limit was reached? MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Such a filter would be reasonably simple, something like article_articleid == whatever & !("user" in user_groups) would stop IP edits, which I don't think would be that expensive (only checks two things).

Also, there aren't 500 edit filters that are enabled, its more like 100. Legoktm (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on account renames and external attribution moved to Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username#On_renames_and_external_attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

28bytes, assuming it won't impact the condition limits in a noticeable manner (I see that as I type, of the last 1,560 actions, 2 (0.13%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000), would you be opposed to trialing it for a few weeks to see how many hits it gets? MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed if the other edit filter managers aren't... perhaps you could drop a note on WT:EFM to let them know about the conversation? If no one there has a problem with it, perhaps it's worth a try. 28bytes (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it either. I don't think others should have an opposition to testing it for a few weeks. Wifione ^Message 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A pointer to this RfC. I'm inclined to support, but not until I hear from you guys whether you have any problems with it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If the community supports it, I have no issues with it. That said, I highly doubt the new clerks will have greater success than the crats in handling disruptive behavior at RFA. MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Similar to MBisanz. I've proposed in the past that Crats become more involved in policing RfAs, but there was no rush of consensus there, either. As always, whatever the community decides, I'll implement. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If crats get more involved in policing RFAs, their legitimacy to close a RFA in which they or by association one of their colleagues intervened, will be questioned, directly involving them in drama. In the current situation crats are relatively insulated from the RFA drama and accomplish their job generally unhindered. Involving them in 'policing RFAs' would risk destabilizing this part of RFA which actually functions well. Cenarium (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Crats, as individuals, occasionally support or oppose RfXs, and find it no problem to recuse subsequently from any closing decision. Equally, a Crat could police an RfX and then recuse. But this is hypothetical, as there seems to be no community appetite for the idea, which is fine. --Dweller (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Any administrator is welcome to take steps to deal with user conduct issues at RfA as with any other areas of the project, including blocking users where problems persist after warnings. I'm not convinced that general user conduct issues necessitate clerks or action by bureaucrats (although we are each of course also administrators). The other duties suggested for clerks appear to be ones that any user can (and many do, for which I am grateful) assist with. WJBscribe (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure at this point that it won't pass. Hopefully we'll keep trying until we find something that works. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Note the (currently) last comment at WT:RFA#New RfC: the RfC is ready for edits and comments before it goes live. It goes without saying that crats are particularly welcome to comment on anything involving the RfA process; it also goes without saying that this should be said. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat !votes in a request for adminship, is that bureaucrat able to perform the close regardless of the outcome? If the answer is no, what happens is a candidate is so popular (and trusted, of course) that all 35 bureaucrats vote on his/her request for adminship? Will we need a steward to perform the close? This is just curiosity :) Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually not a good idea for a 'crat who has expressed a position to close an RFA/RFB. Very much doubt all 'crats would ever !vote so yet to deal with that situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) Just a guess, but I would assume that there's always one or two bureaucrats who would plan to hold back on any given RfA, almost like a self-designated designated survivor for government events. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I seldom !vote in RFAs and I'd be interested to see how many other 'crats do. I would bet my house that there's never been a time when all 'crats have !voted at a single RFA or RFB.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking through some of the very old RFAs, trying to win a free house, but I haven't found one that every bureaucrat voted on. There were some close calls, though. I'll keep looking. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that it is practically impossible on en-wiki to have all crats voting on a single RFA, but in the case that this happens, which would be the procedure? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably the same procedure we will use if all of the crats suddenly decide to resign their cratship on the same day: we'll make it up as we go along and muddle through. It doesn't make any sense to come up with a procedure that has, to three significant figures, a zero percent chance of happening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't be like that, Floq, I'm sure the OP is aware of the practical unlikelihood/impossibility. You'd better let your monster do the posting at times like this, I bet he'd have taken it in the spirit it was offered. (E. g., with counter question: "What happens if a candidate is so evil and detested that all 35 bureaucrats oppose his/her request for adminship? Snow admin them per IAR for obviously having the kind of chutzpah the admin corps needs!") Bishonen | talk 19:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC).

@Floq: I know it has a zero percent of change to happen, but there is the same chance that a bomb will sway Caracas tomorrow, and still, the Venezuelan government has procedures in case it happens ;) Anyways, it was just a question that came out of my mind. tahnks for the response. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If an infirmity prevents a required crat action from being done on a wiki, the stewards will step in and do it. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But only after being requested to do so by a 'crat. We don't need stewards making decisions on behalf of our community or our 'crats. Naturally. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm sure Avi or myself would remember to flag them down. And ask them to BigDelete WP:RFA while they're at it. MBisanz ^talk 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just making the point. I'm sure I (and you) can recall the odd instance where a steward has waded into our Wikipedia without consensus. We don't want "god" editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What if the stewards all voted or are unavailable? /me runs away --Rschen7754 21:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Then, no doubt, someone will ask God, but I'd suggest we then hold on until the end of the next Mayan calendar rotation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Seriously, trying to create specific policy in advance to deal with very unusual and unlikely-to-occur circumstances is usually asking for trouble. (First, it's a variation on the theme of hard cases make bad law. Second, such policy tends to be created with a casual regard for its implications and consequences because even among the few people who bother to participate in the drafting process, no one really expects to actually need to use it. Finally, what usually happens if a weird circumstance does arise is that it isn't quite what the policy's writers had in mind when they wrote their weird-circumstance policy. Then either the policy gets ignored anyway, or – usually worse – someone tries to shoehorn an ill-fitting weird circumstance into the existing policy framework, and Dubious Outcomes arise. (The recent brouhaha here on WP:BN regarding a request to usurp an account with more than five thousand edits saw some rather vigorous circumstance-shoehorning arguments.)

Finally, if you're really keen on this, read up on the rule of necessity in law. Essentially, in situations where a judge has a conflict of interest he does not have to recuse/disqualify himself if all other judges who might hear the case have the same conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this isn't an attempt to create policy but rather mere curiosity in the vein of what if?. Practically speaking, we have a handful of "reserve" bureaucrats who are active editors but haven't used the 'crat tools in years; we could always drop by their talk page to ask for help before going to the stewards. 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't opined in an RfX for ages for this very purpose, but remember, that the reason we do not usually close decisions is to prevent the appearance of impropriety, so, in actuality, the only situation where this may occur is if all the crats state their opinion and STILL there is a potential uncertainty as to consensus. Even in that rare, rare, rare, rare, possibility, there remain the stewards and Jimbo. Let me know if there we ever have a case where all stewards, crats, and Jimbo have opined on an RfX and there still is a consensus problem . Seriously, should that ever occur, I think I agree with 28bytes that the rule of necessity should apply. I'm not holding my breath until that happens, though . -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Thank you all. It was just, as 28bytes wrote above, mere curiosity :) Obviously, we don't need to write policy for when this happens, if it ever happens, which I guess it won't. Also, just in case this happens, we can always promote a new crat and then this crat can close the other RfX that is awaiting (yeah, that crazy idea just came into my mind while I was writing this). Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We'll need closers for the new RfC (which has some support at WT:RFA, btw) at WT:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1. I asked at WP:AN; no takers so far. (Apparently, this is hard!) Btw, I've been searching around for some snappy version of what I've been trying to say lately; my last reply to Kudpung at User_talk:Kudpung#RfA clerking comes closest, I think. I really hope this new RfC format is successful; it could be useful for a lot more than RfA reform if it is. (Since this is about the tenth approach I've tried, I'm not under any illusions that I'm good with this stuff, but hopefully others who are good with this stuff will get on board.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The first round closes around midnight EST on Tuesday. I'd prefer just a little discussion of how the closers want to approach this before the actual deadline, since a theme here is that the standard RfC format hasn't worked for this problem, and I (and the voters) will be looking for your ideas. I was hoping for 3 closers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (Also posted at WP:AN). - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Could a crat look at and close Wikipedia_talk:BAG#BAG_Nomination:_Addshore? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to keep wasting your time like this, but I would like to resign my tools. I don't have the temper for being an admin, and frankly what I like doing here is writing articles. For the record this should be considered "under a cloud", as there is currently two open discussions regarding whether my conduct is unbecoming of an admin. I think it probably was. I will not request my tools back without going through an RfA. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrats please pretend not to see this while I try to talk him out of it. NE Ent 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Or as a minimum wait until the determination as to whether or not a cloud does exist. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, I'm on my phone and thus unable to investigate this request enough to act. It's also worth noting that while a user's self-declaration of a cloud is given strong weight (to avoid creating a perverse incentive), final determination rests with the bureaucrats (or Arbcom in the context of an open case). MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I do not in any way support this desysop action --Senra (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As stewards, we often implement a 24 hour waiting period for a self-request for removal of tools over at Meta when the reason for the self-request was an on-wiki "issue —a cooling off period as it were. As a 'crat, while I don't feel it should be made de jure as the reinstatement now is, I wouldn't mind "forgetting" to do this for a while for Maunus to have time to think. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to note, again, that while I can't bind future crats who might review a request for resysopping, I can state my present-sense impression of the facts as I perceive them at the time of a desysopping, which as a crat, I lend significant weight to in determining suitability for resysopping. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For us simple folk -- is that under a cloud yes, or under a cloud no? NE Ent 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not under a cloud, at this time and under my non-binding opinion. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: After confirming with Maunus, I have honored his request and removed his access to the sysop toolkit. While I have not read every line of the WP:ANI discussion, my review of the discussion does not indicate to me that Maunus was in any significant danger of being brought in front of either ArbCom or the community with the intent to determine whether or not he should maintain access. With that understanding, the self-removal request was not in an effort to avoid sanctions, and, in my opinion, return of the tools should be performed upon request (after 24 hours) barring new information. I would appreciate if some other bureaucrats would comment to confirm or correct my statement. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My 2¢: Maunus is welcome to run for RfA to get the tools back if he wants to put the question to the community, but I agree with Avi that it is not necessary. I commend him for holding himself to a high (perhaps unrealistically high?) standard for admin behavior, and for stepping down on the basis that he doesn't feel he meet those standards (despite the fact that other editors strongly disagree with his assessment.) I don't think a serious argument can be made that he is or was in danger of being desysopped for making a few intemperate remarks. 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, considering the person making the request have themselves stated that it is 'under a cloud', I find the comments above quite curious. Arkon (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? If someone resigned the bits and declared themselves not under a cloud, we wouldn't take that at face value either. I understand Maunus' perspective, but it's really not his call to make. 28bytes (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

AGF directs us to take his statements at face value. In your hypothetical, you would need evidence to disprove this 'not under a cloud' declaration. What evidence do you have to counter his own words? Also, it appears that while his resysop would have to go through this board, if not through RFA, no policy that I have found makes it your call either. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

28bytes is a Bureaucrat. Please see Wikipedia:ADMIN#After_voluntary_removal and Wikipedia:CRAT#Restoration_of_permissions. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Arkon: as MBisanz says elsewhere in this thread, we cannot bind The Crats of the Future, but we can offer our perspective on whether, at this point in time, the resignation appears voluntary or under threat of sanction. That's all I and the other crats are doing here. 28bytes (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@MB, I am aware of that. Your first link does not say the determination of 'under a cloud' is made by Bureaucrats. Your second link states "2.Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." If this is the part you believe allows you fellas to make the determination, you are going to need to explain how multiple threads at AN/I, specifically regarding his actions, which lead directly to his resignation, doesn't jive with his wish for it to be 'under a cloud'. Arkon (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A cloud means he resigned to avoid scrutiny that has a reasonable possibility of leading to desysopping. That usually means an RFC/U or RFAR. An ANI or AN discussion, on its own, is not of sufficient magnitude to put an admin's rights in peril because it cannot lead directly to desysopping or an RFAR where desysopping can occur on its own. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a reading that doesn't exist in policy. I actually quoted the part that applies (which you linked me to), and it's much broader. Sanctions does not always equal desysopping. Arkon (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a reading we've always used as crats reviewing resysopping requests, is the unchallenged basis of a recent RFC, and was recently tested and upheld in an Arbcom case. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet one that is counter to the actual policy. Do you not see my point? Arkon (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't see your point. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, please point me to where 'Under a cloud' is about the possibility of being desysopped only. (Also which RFC were you talking about? The inactive admin one? Got a link for that as well?) Arkon (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices and the essay Wikipedia:Under a cloud discussing the term. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of those links support the broader 'Sanctions', not only the possiblity of desysopping. Arkon (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arkon, if it helps, consider that according to policy: in most cases, policy is to reflect common practice, not the other way round. Policy pages are merely a helpful way to convey such so that everyone is "on the same page" as it were. If some policy pages do not reflect previous consensus and common practice, then they should probably be changed to reflect that. Please clearly point to the policies in question, and I'm sure that someone would be happy to help correct any confusions or oversights. - jc37 01:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

MB helpfully provided the links above, so you can start there with attempting to change the policies. Also, I really don't feel like digging into the archives, but I don't believe the 'cloud' has been limited to desysopping in practice either. Arkon (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Arkon, you're not the only one who doesn't like digging in the archives . In any event, I believe that I have been consistent over the years in my understanding and application of the principle. Once someone has demonstrated that he or she has gained the trust of the community, that lasts until it can be shown that it has been revoked. This is almost always done through a RfAR and the removal of the permissions. If someone actively tries to evade sanctions by "voluntarily" abdicated access to the tool set, that evasion should not be rewarded by "no-questions-asked" restoration in the future. However, if someone voluntarily relinquishes the tools when he or she is not in danger of having those tools forcibly removed, then that does not indicate that said administrator has lost the trust of the community as a whole, and there is no impediment to returning the tools in a normal fashion. In the English Wikipedia project, the decision as to the intent behind the relinquishment has traditionally been vested in the bureaucratic corps. As such, it is actually an obligation on us, when we act on a voluntary abdication, to note our opinion on its nature for the benefit of future bureaucrats who may be called on (years later, perhaps) to decide on returning the tool. In this case, in my (and apparently the majority of the bureaucratic corps) opinion, Maunus relinquished his tools out of a deep sense of disappointment in himself, and the desire to prevent himself from acting in a manner in which he would find unbecoming. It was not because he was in serious and significant danger of having the tools removed from him involuntarily, and it is almost certain that had Maunus not asked for the tools to be removed, there would have been no outcry, or at least none that would have resulted in any action, for his tools to be removed forcefully, thus my notation upon actually removing the tool set access, and the opinions of my fellow bureaucrats. Now, if there is something specific in the above explanation which you can point to as in clear contradistinction from Wikipedia policy or guideline, please let me know. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry Maunus decided to do this; he's a little hot tempered, but usually a great admin. However, I really wish Crats would grant requests like this (the "For the record this should be considered 'under a cloud'" part). Regardless of whether he was in danger of losing his bit, his saying something like this should mean something concrete. Otherwise, it cheapens the gesture, and makes everyone more cynical about such promises. Of course, IANAB, so this opinion is worth slightly less than the cookie I'm eating as I write it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see it more that a user's statement that he is or is not under a cloud is not determinative because he's an involved party in his own status. It's an outside observer's determination when he requests resysopping that counts. As I said, this can create a perverse incentive if someone is determined to be considered under a cloud, but I'm hoping that doesn't happen. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh well. I was informed a while back that blocking an Arb twice would be grounds for an immediate desysop. So I suppose Maunus could do that. But there really ought to be an easier way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's one of those vague areas I think we go out of our way not to emphasize, so I understand why you're also uncomfortable with it. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Does it have to be the same arb both times, or would any two arbs be enough? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no current intentions either of being necessarily declared under a cloud, nor of requesting my bit back. My intention is that should I ever change my mind about being/not being and admin, I should do myself and the community the favor of going through an RfA. Of course the bureaucrats' decision to not declare it under a cloud makes the final choice be up to my own conscience at that time - but again at this time I have no intention of ever requesting it back either through this board or through an RfA. Of course at some point I may get an urge to block me a couple of Arbitrators.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirm, no cloud. And plaudits all round for some dollops of integrity, wisdom and kindness being displayed by various contributors to the thread. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, no cloud that I can see, though he is welcome to go through RFA again instead of requesting return of the bit here. That's always been an available choice to anyone desysopped through request or inactivity. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The grace period for requesting the crat bit for former crats that have been inactive for more than 3 years will end 00:00, 01 February 2013 (UTC)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And the grace period is now over. New policy will now take full effect.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Should this hard-blocked account be renamed? JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

...and this one? (It's one of those days... ) JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a crat but I would say yes. Those are wholly inappropriate username, especially the first one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. If necessary, an oversighter can reblock them with 'hideuser' enabled, which will hide their usernames on all logs and hide all of their edits. Renaming generates more log entries which contain the username. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was doable. What about the actual user?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If a user with a bad username hasn't edited, then simply deleting the userpage (if any) and talkpage (if any) will often be sufficient to remove 98% of the damage caused by the username. I will go ahead delete these pages for these two usernames. Oversight or rev-deletion may be used as appropriate, but isn't really necessary in there instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This used to be a 'crat function which included an oversighter rev-deleting the rename log entry. It's since been replaced with the "Suppress username from edits and lists" checkbox on the Block form for Oversighters. As an alternative for recently created abusive usernames (recent enough to have an SUL), a Steward can lock them with the " Account is hidden completely" checkbox on the CentralAuth form. A request to a Steward is usually made on meta:SRG or on IRC. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

After having analyzed every word of this RfC in detail I have formulated the closing statement below.

• A bureaucrat may not resysop a former administrator if, the former admin in question resigned during an active RfC/U, or any other user conduct RfC, or an active request for arbitration, or if their administrative rights and privileges were removed as an act of the arbitration committee. A bureaucrat may also not resysop a former admin if they evidently resigned, or became inactive, to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping.
• A bureaucrat may resysop a former admin, if it is determined that the editor in question has resigned in good standing and/or in uncontroversial circumstances. They may also resysop a former admin, in every case, provided that the editor in question has passed WP:RFA or has reached consensus at any legitimate venue of discussion for applying for adminship.
• It should be implied, not necessarily written into policy, that if the bureaucrat mistakenly adds or removes the sysop bit, it should simply be undone.
• The community has chosen bureaucrats for their experience and judgement. The community feels that bureaucrat discretion and common sense should not be discouraged.
• The following options have failed or hasn't meet consensus: 4-12, 14, 16, and 17.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is pretty much the status-quo. My only quibble would be with the word "demonstrated" in point two. That's unfortunate terminology. I see no need, value, or consensus for any "demonstration" (what would that look like). It's rather they get re-sysopped unless there's evidence (satisfying the crat) they are not in good standing. We don't want to have people have to fill in forms and answer questions to "demonstrate" they are in good standing - we assume good faith unless there's evidence to the contrary.--Scott Mac 21:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The wording of the first sentence may need to be tweaked. As it stands («A bureaucrat may not resysop [...] if, the former admin in question was the subject of an RfC/U [...]») it looks like it applies to any RfC/U (etc.) even if the given RfC/U (etc.) was closed not against the admin's behaviour. - Nabla (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the whole RFC is faulty and should probably be ignored. At the top was the question "Should the policy for determination of suitability for resysopping be changed?". Unfortunately, the RFC didn't determine that - instead a number of options were given all of which presumed that it was determining what the policy should now be - and assumed that the policy needed changed by codification. If the comment "The community has chosen bureaucrats for their experience and judgement. The community feels that bureaucrat discretion and common sense should not be discouraged." is taken seriously, then the rest falls as being either obvious to any bureaucrat and thus unnecessary to say, or as restrictive of good judgement in each case and thus harmful. The RFC was ill-advised and assumed clarity and codification are desirable - when the standard policy is to avoid instuction creep. I suggest forget it, and move on.--Scott Mac 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I pulled out what the community seemed to agree on. I have tweaked the wording a bit to fix demonstrated. I believe this was not such an ideal RfC and I was faced with conflicting options when reading the page. I'm not saying this should be written into policy and I am in agreement with Scott here. I offered to close it initially and I followed through on it. In the beginning it seemed like a good RfC. My view on that was completely different by the end. With that being said, if anybody sees issues with my close, I'm all ears. I will admit, though I tried to close to the best of my ability, that I probably slipped up somewhere and that this is a learning experience for me and evaluation of consensus and sound judgement.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note:I have a problem with that first point. The fact that an admin resinged during an RfAR or RFCU is irrelevant. The only issue is if that resignation was done in the face of a significant possibility that the rights were going to be forcibly removed. Someone who is a party to an RfC, which is clearly going in his or her favor, but is so disgusted with the process that they resign should not be considered to have resigned to avoid sanction, but the first note implies this. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As a closer, it would be inappropriate to word it differently than how it was initially stated. Please see option 2 of that RfC.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

...so what if a bureaucrat uses their discretion and common sense to restore the sysop bit to someone who resigned during an RfC/U where they were cleared of any wrongdoing? They were apparently in good standing (meaning that they hadn't actually done anything wrong). That would satisfy the second and fourth bullets, but fail the first. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I had really hoped when I wrote it as "non-mutually exclusive sections may be combined with each other if the closing editor feels there is consensus for multiple alterations," that the closing editor WOULD change the wording to the extent necessary to make the closure a single, coherent thought and not just a listing of all the sections that "passed." MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of the discussion does appear to be that, whilst bureaucrats are to retain a level of discretion in other circumstances, this does not include instances where someone resigned during a live RfAR of RfCU. For RfARs, the Phil Welsh case included the principle that "An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise ... whether or not the arbitration case is accepted." For RfCUs I agree that this marks a change in practice - I would have restored the rights in the circumstances Avi outlines. However those participating in the discussion appear to favour a clearer line in the sand. The community was asked for comment and I think our approach must adapt to the consensus demonstrated. If guidance is sought as to how a discretion should be exercised, the discretion may narrow as a result. That is what appears to have happened here. Pending any change in consensus, I think it is right that we no longer restore right to users who quit during RfCUs, whatever their outcome was/would have been. This should be made clear to any admin who ask to resign their bit during an RfCU or RfAR. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closer's Comment: In any event, as I stated, there are conflicting views that received sufficient consensus for support. I could try and combine the wording as MBisanz states, but I fear I may be altering the statements that editors expressed their opinion into something different. If I said, Burueacrats may not resysop a former admin if they resigned during an active RfC/U or RfAr unless provided that outcome of the discussion would not have resulted in a desysop would be altering the wording of the statement of that option and in essence, would be putting my own opinion into the close. I stated as they are for a reason. The 24 hour wait allows for the community to assess a former admin. If they did infact leave during an active RfC/U, but it was apparent that didn't resign because of that RfC/U, this where the crat discretion I mentioned in the close comes in. The crat, with their experience and judjement, should be able to piece the wording of this close together to fit the situation and resysop or not based on that and/or the discussion. I worded it this way because I feel any other way may cause more issues.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is half-arsed and incoherent - an attempt to fix what isn't broken and classic "instruction creep". When you try to draw lines, rather than trust judgement, you end up with 20 more anomalies and calls for more clarity. The RFC was pretty low participation, badly formatted, and (with respect) legalistically closed. I suggest discounting it - I see no reason why it should trump longstanding practice and good sense. If a real problem consistently emerges then we'll work out what to do then. Meanwhile crats use your judgement, and in the few controversial cases discuss it together.--Scott Mac 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Was there a site notice for this RfC? Potential changes of this nature needs to be broadcast widely, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As I offered to close, I told MBisanz that s/he should up a watchlist notice, but I didn't see anything.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked for an impartial person to consider a notice at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details/Archive_7, but no one did. I would agree with Will's comments. I'm actually a bit surprised at this RFC because it didn't reflect the more limited discussion that happened earlier on this board, but I'll do it. MBisanz ^talk 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no such consensus. I see low participation, and may of those supporting this either offering no rationale, or a, in some cases, a rationale or caveat that serves to undermine any idea that the crat has no discretion if there is an RFC. "IAR may apply as appropriate. Not all RfC's are created equal." so long as "the bureaucrat will determine if there is any consensus before denying/accepting the resysop proposal." "Yes, if the resignation was to avoid sanction. Someone who is a party to an RfC, but was never in danger of losing his or her bit, but resigns out of frustration, disappointment, etc. should not be considered as trying to avoid sanction" [only] "if in the RfC a desysop of the user was stated as a desired outcome, and was supported by two editors in good standing", etc That's leaving aside the "no" votes.--Scott Mac 15:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey all! I'm not able to run the Wikipedia:Inactive administrators report right now due to a temporary failure logging in to Labs, but I just wanted to drop a note to let everyone know I'll try again in the morning (my time) and in the meantime I'd prefer a manual report not be done so I can be sure the new report code runs on Labs (having been moved from the Toolserver). Assuming that it will, it'll be put in the crontab and run on the first of the month automagically.

Cheers! — madman 05:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the following can be desysopped as inactive for February 2013:

• Fl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Samulili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• GeneralPatton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• ClockworkLunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Nikki311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• A Train (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Aris Katsaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been rather inactive and no longer need sysop tools, I request desysoping. Regards, -- ReyBrujo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This can be closed now, the candidate has withdrawn. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nomination at RFA and ask for the thread's closure. Thank you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done WilliamH (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Will. That was an interesting exercise. Always glad to be part of something new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Dbromage. User is requesting an account rename per WP:RTV. No comment on the merits, just passing along. --Jayron32 05:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he's contacted us via the mailing list too. Thanks for the heads up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

moved from Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

Having reviewed the just-under-77% Miniapolis RFA - and the generally negative neutrals, I was surprised to see it marked as "successful" ... was there a crat chat on that, or am I just not reading well today? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. I read the various "AFD scare" opposes and decided that Miniapolis' adminship would be a net gain based on the positive support she received. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I also don't consider it required a cratchat. And the RfA closed at 79%, not under 77%. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Check your math (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ups. My math gives me that she had 77,8%, which can be considered as 78%. My apologies for adding a 1% above :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this would get more visibility at WP:BN rather than here, if you're bothered to pursue it Bwilkins.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually came here to move it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Maths etc aside, I assessed the various negative opinions regarding inexperience at AFD etc, and decided that promoting Miniapolis would be a net positive to the project. Thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Anything in the 70s is certainly within Crat discretion and the opposing votes had some valid points, but I agree that there did seem to be a overall consensus to give the bit and trust her to know her limits and tread carefully in drama areas in the short term. Seems like a nice person, hopefully adminship won't ruin that. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have not reviewed the RfA, and am not commenting one way or the other. I'd just like to confirm the above statements with my understanding as well in that cratchats are never required. The closing crat is the one who decides whether or not he or she can determine consensus on his or her own, or would prefer to consult with other crats due to the specifics of the RfX discussion. -- Avi (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This was a simple question about process in this individual case, and more for my own reference than anything else. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Cratchats are perishingly rare, and were so even in the days when RfAs abounded. Does anyone know if there are any stats kept on Cratchats? (And FWIW, I echo Avi's wise words) --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRATCHAT has 12 listed, with 4 of them being RfBs. Legoktm (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What a strikingly sensible place for them to be listed. As I thought, that's not very many at all. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In recent years, we're only allowed to have one per year and we already had the one for this year. KTC (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi bureaucrats, please always link to any closed RfA in the edit summary when you're removing it from the RfA page. That saves a fair bit of clicking around to get to the RfA from one's watchlist. Many thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A good suggestion. 28bytes (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A Bureaucrat who usurped a username for be did it wrong... Somehow he changed user:rosscoolguy to user:nerdfighter without changing any of my settings. it still shows "Rosscoolguy Talk Sandbox..." in the top right.When I click on contributions it only shows the ones I made after the usurp. The ones before the usurp are under "nerdfighter contributions" it didn't change my signature either. Please fix this! Rosscoolguy (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to log into your account using the new username. You're logged into a different account (with the older username) right now. Legoktm (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much. I was scared. Just a sec. Rosscoolguy (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I am considering returning to edit on a more regular basis and would love to have my bits and pieces re-attached. You can rebuild me. You have the technology.

I have been away for so long that I'm sure everything's quite different to the way I left it, so rest assured that I shall go very, very slow. Riana (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Cheers! ~ Riana ⁂ 07:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin, non-crat) Everything appears fine for a re-sysopping, but we do have a 24-hour mandatory wait period now. For 'crats: Riana was desysopped on September 8, 2011 as inactive. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Moe, all good - no rush. Currently reading my watchlist with a bemused expression on my face - that'll take me a while, I bet! ~ Riana ⁂ 07:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A familiar name. Delighted to see you back. Confirm this is uncontroversial. NB you may find WP:UPDATE of some use. Don't take that personally, I plan to mention it to every resysop candidate, if I remember/see the requests. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you around, Riana. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

All good in this 'hood. Welcome back Riana. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oi, TRM, you and EVula had better stay away from this most difficult of bureaucrat decision, as your impartiality is most certainly tainted by your Cabal membership. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

*cackles maniacally* EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no concerns here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with my colleagues. MBisanz ^talk 18:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Non admin observation. Riana was among the best administrators in the project back in the 2007/2008 era. It is a net positive for a resysopping, though she might have to go though some signpost archives to keep up to date on the community. Welcome back! Secret ^account 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

/me waves. Welcome back! -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking at your page just a few weeks ago, wondering what happened to you. I remember seeing you around quite a bit back in the day when I was known as Pharmboy. Good to have you back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done -- Avi (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome back, gang! And for the shiny tools - I promise to use them for good and whatever else I promised back in the day in my RfA :P ~ Riana ⁂ 07:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Use them for good"? Crap, guys, obviously someone else has control over Riana's account. Pulling up Special:UserRights now... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shhh... ~ Riana ⁂ 08:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hurra! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As I am rarely active on Wikipedia, I ask that you remove my administrative privileges to reduce risk. Thanks. Martin (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. MBisanz ^talk 17:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be pretty much unavailable from February 22 - March 2 because of this. If some people could step up to help maintain coverage at the following pages, it would be most appreciated:

• WP:BRFA - Make sure tasks get feedback on functionality and consensus, then flag down a BAG member with {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}.
• WP:CHUS - Help Tyrol clerk and format requests and help 28bytes rename if you're a crat.
• WP:CHUU - Help communicate expectations to the users and review the target's contributions for materiality here and on the SUL matrix.

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to pick up some of the CHU work. I quite like doing it and don't get to it as often as I'd like. Though I think I'm one of the more conservative Crats in terms of approving grey area requests... --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to stop by also. @Dweller: Likewise, so I guess that'll make them appreciate MB all the more when he gets back! WJBscribe (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Matt. I'll be sure to make time to check in more often than usual. Good luck with the bar. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, what the hell. I've been pestered about this enough since I returned a few months ago, and I've realized that there are a couple of times where having another crat handy would be beneficial. I'd like to request my bureaucrat tools back. They were removed after I had resigned due to inactivity (link), and when I requested admin tools back in December, I didn't request the crat tools back at the time. (X! · talk)  · @420  ·  09:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that I have any comments to this apart from welcoming X! back, but wasn't there a 24 hours wait for restoration of permission? -- KTC (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thirded, but aren't we supposed to wait 24 hours? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I was assuming the 24-hour wait we applied here was sufficient to satisfy the requirement... a second waiting period for the same editor seemed a bit superfluous, since we'd be answering the same question we answered in December. 28bytes (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but what if he went crazy between then and now? I know X! is prone to that sort of thing... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Blasted, my evil plan is foiled! Off to the stewards I go... (X! · talk)  · @761  ·  17:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You rang? ? -- Avi (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I like the precedent of using the initial 24 hour period for restoring the sysop bit to also cover a later restoration of the bureaucrat bit. (though I don't want my statement here to detract from the fact that X! is crazy) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's about time you requested the tools back. Took you long enough. :P—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to a bug, I have temporarily shut down adminstats.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Any time frame on it being restarted? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I had it shut down because one of my "fixes" caused the bot to start blanking stat pages. It's running now, but I'm still working on a patch to fix the bug. I should have a patch by tomorrow or Sunday.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, good luck with the patch. I'd offer to help, but I'd probably just break something. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With the number of patches in place, it's running on hopes and prayers at this point, kind of like Windows Vista. I hope to overhaul the entire bot, starting with the framework, to make it more up to date, efficient, and more elegant should it fail.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

About the only thing Vista had going for it was its lickability and empty calories. Godspeed on overhauling the bot. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

After discussion with some of my fellow stewards, it is currently considered acceptable when changing a username due to real name or other privacy concerns, to delete the SUL name if the SUL has no other edits on any other of the 680+ Wikimedia projects. This will hopefully prevent much of the "accidentally recreated" real name account issues we get. Stewards can delete SULs, and we have two native EnWiki bureaucrats who are also stewards currently, myself and MBisanz. Hopefully this will further help to protect our users' privacy. -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a good move, but isn't this a workaround to what would be better dealt with at the software level? Should we file a bug asking for SUL to be automatically deleted if the only account forming part of the SUL is renamed? That would presumably save steward time that could be better spent elsewhere... WJBscribe (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a good idea Will. Unfortunately, if a person with an SUL even visits another project, a local account is created, so there could be 20 or so accounts, all with 0 edits, so the software would also have to check for edit counts, which makes it more complicated, and, as Dweller points out below, would mean it would be implemented sometime in 2047. At least manually we can do it immediately on a case-by-case basis. -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That would also help the many wikis that have no stewards active there. On the other hand, what's the likely waiting time for a non-urgent bugzilla? --Dweller (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

About a dozen years? -- Avi (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• A while back a couple of you folks helped me out with a name change. (I just dropped the last name from my user name). 28bytes did the actual change, and Matt was helping me out with some of the SUL stuff. (which I never bothered to follow-up on to any extent) If there's something to be done in regards to my old account, anyone is perfectly free to do as they deem proper. Thanks for everything you folks do. — Ched :  ?  21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You've got e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! I really hate to be a pest, but a couple sets of bureaucratic eyes over at WP:CHU/S would be tremendously appreciated, as there's a bit of a backlog in Matt's absence. I'll clerk what I can, but if a 'crat or two could take a few minutes to stop by, that would be terrific. Thanks and, again, my apologies for the nuisance. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Tyrol5 (and belated thanks for the clerk work on that page as well.) I've done a handful; I'll pop back in later once the bot catches up and do some more. 28bytes (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome and thank you for helping out. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• If so, can someone please delete mine? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Crats can't delete watchlists, but you can delete your own by clicking on your watchlist link, clicking "edit raw watchlist", selecting all the text in the edit screen, deleting it and saving. Bencherlite^Talk 20:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    • His has become to big to open, so he can't do that. Who has the power to delete a watchlist without opening it?—Kww(talk) 20:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Special:EditWatchlist/raw is the direct link, even if the list is too big to view normally he should still be able to open that--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
        • He's been wandering around the wiki looking for someone to help him: he can't open that link, and no one seems to have the ability to do it for him.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Find a more powerful computer maybe? or somewhere with a better internet connection?--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Per Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Cannot edit watchlist, the problem is on the server side, not the client.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• I've filed a bug at bugzilla:45380 asking a sysadmin to clear it. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks! It's odd that bureaucrats cannot do this, but I guess there is a limit to even their powers. LOL. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  Actually it is a security/ privacy issue. Werieth (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  If we were anywhere near as powerful as people apparently think we are, being a bureaucrat would be a lot more fun. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you are bored, and you know which pages are on your watchlist, you can remove them one at a time by using ?action=unwatch on each page's URL (e.g., like this). I guess you could write a script to do this repeatedly for pages you know are on your watchlist. Probably not a workable solution! QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  It wouldnt be that difficult to write a bot to do that, you can get 500 pages at a time that are on your watchlist via the API. Werieth (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  I've already made that suggestion.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 22:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have the same issue on Commons and someone kindly pointed to this discussion. Did anybody know of bots that can be modified to do the job? There is pywikipediabot/watchlist.py that can be cannibalized, but it is only marginally related. Any other pythons (or other) codes out there? --Jarekt (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My bot can.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My watchlist was purged by Max Semenik. But I am still interested in what to do in case that happens in the future. Cyberpower, anychance you can share the code of your bot for that task. I can probably run it myself. --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm only answering because I happened to see this as I opened my browser.Jarekt, You'll need the complete framework for my bot. I could zip it up for you and then give you the script.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 16:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you try something along the lines of <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&days=0.00001>? Or 0.00000000000000000000000001, if it was worse than that. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• 23skidoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Burgundavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Gerald Farinas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Goatasaur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Hall Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Mackeriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Orioane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Satori Son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Wile E. Heresiarch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

The following can be desysopped as inactive as of today. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, notified, and user pages amended accordingly - with regret. If someone could updated the status list on the page that's linked in the title, that'd be grand. WilliamH (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Hope Moe doesn't mind me stealing his thunder. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. WilliamH (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(at Tyro15) Not at all, go ahead and update WP:FORMER, WP:FORMER/I and WP:FORMER/LTI whenever it's needed, I think I'm the only one actively updating it :P Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi, I'd like to request the admin tools back, which were removed from my account on 1 October 2012 due to an year's inactivity. I usually lurk around from about UTC 0400 to 1700, and came across several situations where the mop would have come in handy (mostly at WP:AIV, and random requests at WP:HD and WP:ERRORS) in the couple of weeks since I returned to regular editing. Those were the places I used to haunt back then so I thought I'd try helping out again. I promise I'll be careful and won't break anything :) Chamal ^T•C 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! There's a 24-hour waiting period now, but it doesn't look like there's any reason not to grant the resysop request once 24 hours has passed. 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, don't see any issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No issues that I can find. He must be really good at hiding them... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No issues here,  Done. (X! · talk)  · @267  ·  05:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Chamal ^T•C 08:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Two days ago, I requested for my username to be changed from Charles35 to MidnightRequestLine. The procedure was done here. As you can see, my signature still says Charles35, but my userpage says MidnightRequestLine. When I try to log in, MRL does not work, but Charles35 does. I asked the user who finalized the change for help here, and they referred me here. Please help, thanks! Charles35 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no failure. You recreated the Charles35 account on March 5 because you were probably still logged in to one of your other accounts on another language wiki and you logged in again here without following the advice at the top of the rename page:

For editors with a universal login, be sure to logout of your global account before coming back to the English Wikipedia or you may accidentally recreate the old account.

Your MidnightRequestLine account is there, so you just need to login to it. You can find help for logging in over here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As this was a privacy rename, I have re-renamed the old account to something unrecognizable, and I have deleted the SUL for the old account, which should prevent automatic recreation. -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys! I'll be travelling for the next four days or so and will thus be unavailable to clerk over at CHU/S. An extra set or two of clerk eyes (bureaucratic or non-bureaucratic) would be welcome to hold down the fort and reduce Matt's workload. See you early next week. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I'll try to be more active. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for covering. Matt, I didn't figure it was possible for you to be more active, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I'm back to full activity. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Could one (or a few of you) good folks start that 24 hour clock thing and have a look around my history. Here was my "take em" request. Actually it was kinda nice to not have to worry about some things for a while, but I suppose it's better to be prepared than to pester other admins. I'm not sure what the current phrase is for it, but if anyone sees any "clouds" on the weather radar - feel free let me know. Now all that said:

• May I please have my tools back. Thank you for your consideration, and kind regards to all. — Ched :  ?  18:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Only just spotted this. Looks fine to me. OK in 24hrs if no dissent. Welcome back, Ched. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dweller. Noticing the section below and the rename issues; I did have a rename last year. The original RfA is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ched Davis if that's important. — Ched :  ?  21:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? Oh my God, not Ched Davis?! That's a different story! Controversy! Cloud! (Hi Ched welcome back to the 5 timers club) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ROTF ... thanks Floq. Yea, I guess being inconspicuous isn't exactly my strong suit eh? — Ched :  ?  21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ched is about as inconspicuous as a solar eclipse. PumpkinSky talk 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I thank you sir. — Ched :  ?  23:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I was an active administrator for a number of years, but retired my account in June 2009. I am now considering re-joining Wikipedia, and seek advice and consideration regarding again becoming an administrator. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently, consensus is that admins who have not edited in three years must undergo a full RfA to regain access to the administrative toolset. -- Avi (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been three years, though. (X! · talk)  · @192  ·  03:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

True, especially now that a new edit has been made. Looking through the logs [3][4], I can't find where you were ever an admin under this username. Have you been renamed? I can see where you were deleting pages, so you must have been at some point. Maybe I'm just tired and not searching correctly... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I found you listed here with a promotion date of June 22, 2006, and I see here that you renamed yourself to your current username at 19:21 on 9 August 2006. However, there is no entry for you here under your current username or your older username (the one mentioned in the log above). Also, I can't find a record of any entries on your user talk page prior to 04:29, 14 July 2006‎ when you created the page with the edit summary "copying talk page". Help me out here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mtz206. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thank you. That gives me the rest of what I was looking for. I'm wondering if it might be good to restore and merge the user talk history in order to avoid this problem in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to resysop and think that means the 24hr clock starts now, barring objection. You might want to peruse WP:UPDATE while you wait. --Dweller (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am working through those policy change documents. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also concur as to a resysopping. Thanks everyone who did the legwork. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 11:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Per this motion, please restore the sysop rights to User:Kevin. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done (X! · talk)  · @760  ·  17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Secret started this RfA early and WormTT reverted that closure because Shirt wasn't ready yet. However, when Shirt was ready, he reverted WormTT's revert which resulted in the closure date/time stamp being from the time of Secret's opening rather than the actual opening of the RFA. I fixed this mistake with the linked diff. Just a heads up.--v/r - TP 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And here I also corrected for my own mistake of adjusting the timezone.--v/r - TP 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be remiss if we didn't formally note Hersfold's resignation of the tools and thank him for his thoughtful contributions. We don't have that many active Crats, and it's a shame to lose one. It's even more of a shame that we're losing one for such negative cause. Good luck to you, Hersfold. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am posting here as advised by MBisanz via email, as my case is not a regular username change/usurpation request.

My account Crawler has been usurped [5], in what I believe might have been a mistake, and would like to appeal/ask you to reconsider.

Taken from the Additional guidelines for usurpation requests:

When usurping is probably inappropriate

Target account objects to usurpation.

--> I had no chance to object, as I did not get any email. Might be because email verification was not required years ago when I created my account, and I was never asked to do this, so the email was never verified. Notice was given on my Talk page, but this is not something an occasional user checks periodically. I am just a regular guy/user who is not superactive on Wikipedia, but occasionally I try to contribute and giveback if I can.

Target username has edits.

--> I have created and edited entries in the past.

Account requesting usurpation is not established.

--> The user requesting the usurpation did not have any contributions before, and in fact, he first requested to usurp the name "Veritas" [6], so there was no specific requirement (like SUL) for him to take Crawler as a username. Furthermore, the user has now been inactive for almost a year.

In summary I believe a mistake might have been made here. My username was taken by somebody who should not have been allowed to usurp it (and is not using it now), and I would like to get it back.

Thanks for your time. Crawler (usurped) (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts from me:

1. I think we made a mistake in usurping your account, and I apologise on behalf of us all. It's a good lesson learned.
2. Given point 1, above, I think re-usurping your account would be compounding the error with a new error, that equally is against our policies
3. Given 1 and 2, although I strongly sympathise with you and with your request, I think it'd be a bad idea to agree to a forcible usurpation
4. The best idea would be to politely ask the current Crawler to agree to change username.
5. Failing that, is there a chance you could consider coming up with another username that doesn't require us breaking policy once more?

Sorry, I know that's not your ideal response. --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dweller. Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but I would infuriated if I was given a response like that. You essentially just said, "oh we made a mistake and accidentally violated policy for forcibly usurping, would you mind choosing another username instead?" I would reply to that statement with a no and would demand my own username back. No prejudice to you Dweller, this is merely my opinion.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, since the 'crats, as Dweller puts it, made a mistake in usurping, they should undo the mistake by un-usurping, with a note to the user who would now be usurped (the current Crawler) through e-mail that their account was usurped accidentally, and it has been re-usurped due to inactivity. Fix the problem, don't ask the old Crawler to try to fix it themselves. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I directed him here because I didn't know how to handle it on my own, but first some thoughts:

1. There has never been a requirement that a user must actually be notified, just that the project make reasonable efforts to notify them of the usurp request through a talk page note and an email if they have one set.

2. I agree that the guidelines say if the account has edits, then it's inappropriate to usurp, but I've always read that with WP:CHU and WP:CHUU as significant edits, meaning that an inactive account with very few minor contributions can be usurped. As best as I could tell, none of his edits were significant in that they were five article edits to articles that had been substantially changed in the intervening six years.

3. The person requesting it lost the password to their original account that had 621 edits, so he was established enough to request a usurp, even under a new account.

4. Even if the usurp was a mistake, the new holder of the Crawler account owns the SUL to it and the rights to the name on 20+ other projects, so returning the en.wiki account to Crawler (usurped) would be an inappropriate invasion of his SUL claim. While his SUL claim has enwiki as his home wiki, he also owns the nlwiki version of Crawler, which predates the enwiki usurpation, so the SUL claim is independent of any error of the enwiki usurpation process.

For those reasons, I don't think the enwiki usurp should be undone. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

RE #2. I think Matt uses a loose (weak) definition of "significant" and is too permissive of renames. I consider that any edit is significant if attribution is required. The user definitely had significant contributions. (my bias is that I dislike renames, and more so dislike forced renames of contributor accounts). As for "all the good names seem to be taken", this is a problem requiring a different solution. The original Crawler deserves the apology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it was probably too loose after reviewing the two articles he started and apologize for making that mistake, I just don't think it's a mistake that should be reverse at this point. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, mistakes can happen, however I truly appreciate your apology Dweller and MBisanz. I have given this some thought now and it's not worth making an issue out of this, I understand reversing this would create an even greater mess at this point, so let's leave it as it is. I appreciate all your efforts on behalf of Wikipedia so keep it up guys and let's not look back at this, no harm done. Crawler (usurped) (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding the error and, again, I apologize for it. MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request return of my bit. I will make sure I am conversant with current policies before using it. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you back! --Rschen7754 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No issues here, I'd be fine after 24 hours. (X! · talk)  · @028  ·  23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Great to see you around Lar! :) KTC (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow! Welcome back Lar! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No problems from my point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything seems fine from my perspective. I look forward to seeing you back when the clock finishes running. Pakaran 20:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much!!!! ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I requested resignation of my sysop rights voluntarily a while back. I have recently become active in the community again, particularly with Wikimedia D.C., and would like to request resysop to help out with administrative tasks again. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No issues here, after 24 hours I'd be fine with resysop. To save fellow 'crats some legwork, this user was renamed to and from this name in the past, but all rights log entries appear to show up under the current name. Pakaran 01:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Pakaran. Welcome back. MBisanz ^talk 11:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No issues I can see. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My first +sysop using an iPhone! 28bytes (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That would explain why you just made Fran Rogers a Founder. Could another Crat fix this misclick? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Knew I should have started with my Atari 2600 World Wide Web Cartridge and worked my way up... 28bytes (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to formally request SYSOP rights. I am in need of moving a page and making some edits requiring admin rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnadel (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sysop rights are granted by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and not arbitrarily by bureaucrats. Sysop-related requests on this noticeboard concern only the removal and return of sysop rights which have already been bestowed on an editor. WilliamH (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This user sent an email to the 'crat list, and I sorted out his request (and pointed the way to the proper method for requesting adminship). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the number of arbs voting to remove my bit in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision, I think it would be best if I resign the bit now, instead of waiting until May, resigning, and immediately doing a reconfirmation RFA, as I had originally planned (I'll probably still do the RFA in May, 2 years after the last one). Please restore whatever non-admin rights would be appropriate, as well. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done as a voluntary request. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Gracias. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention that cratstats was erroneously miscounting overdue RfBs, for any candidate that had an RfA. This problem has been resolved.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb#Temporary_injunction, could someone please carry out the desysop? NW (Talk) 03:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe my humor button is broken tonight or the inmates have taken over, but I don't really see the point of the current RfA other than some form of mockery. Assuming it isn't just me, maybe a polite closing is in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm an idiot. I just noticed the date. I will admit, I fail to see the humor in vandalizing ourselves, but accept that I'm in the minority. Think I will just step out for a day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just look at WP:MFD, then I'll feel like an idiot for starting (and kinda continuing) that. Dennis, you aren't the only one, I spent like 30 minutes investigating the fake ANI report... gwickwire^talk_editing 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • And so it begins... does this mean I can blame my bot re-notifying everyone on the March 2013 report on an April Fool's joke rather than on a careless typo in my crontab? (Since fixed, by the way.) — madman 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • <3 Now I feel like a jerk for tricking Dennis.

  P.S. some of the opposes are pretty lacking in substance... maybe y'all should have a 'crat chat when it comes time to close the RfA? :D — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • No, no, no need to feel bad for fooling me, that was the idea, after all. I'm not into the April Fools jokes around here, but perhaps it is because I've been here for almost 7 years and have seen them all, and seldom do I see something truly "new". I don't have a problem with harmless fun (outside of WP:AN and WP:ANI), even if it isn't my cup of tea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to wish all the cats here a happy april fools. :-)—Cyberpower (竜龙) 11:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello cats! Bishzilla apparently already founder status.[7][8] Please activate founder flag! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

[Bishzilla if possible even more full of herself than usual.] Smirk! Simper! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

(*defeated tone*) There can be only one. I respect the wishes of the majority. Please remove my founder flag. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooh. Only one founder flag again? Need change userrights page again? [Bishzilla, always kindly, sticks the dethroned little godking in her pocket before going off to correct Wikipedia:User access levels yet again.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

For a few months now logging into ENWP no longer logs me in to Commons and the others. If I log into Commons it logs me into Meta and the rest, just not ENWP. My accounts are still shown as linked. Could someone maybe unlink my accounts and then relink them, to hopefully fix the issue? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If MBisanz sees this, he might be able to help since he is a steward, but I believe you'll have better luck asking the stewards to look into this as there's not much the bureaucrats can do short of renaming you and un-renaming you, which I'm doubtful would help. 28bytes (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And if even the stewards can't figure it out, and the problem persists, you should probably file a bugzilla request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the technical backend that well, but there are two things I can do at Special:CentralAuth/JohnnyMrNinja. I can delete your SUL and let you re-create it to see if it works better. I can also unmerge your en.wiki account from the SUL and let you re-merge it. If I delete your SUL, you'll lose your SUL ID #26102 and get a new number of like #xxxxxxxxx, but that'll be the only change. If I unmerge your en.wiki account from your SUL, your home wiki will change from en.wiki to commons, but that'll be the only change and won't affect you logging in. My advice would be to first try the un-merge/re-merge and then the deletion, but I'll wait for you to tell me which you prefer or if you're just going to file a bugzilla. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a cookie issues to me. Try cleaning up all of your *.wikimedia.org and *.wikipedia.org cookies, and see that you don't have particular settings that might interfere. Also, does logging on en.wikipedia.org also log you on say, de.wikipedia.org? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox, this is almost certainly the problem (a login for commons.wikimedia.org is working for *.wikimedia.org, but not *.wikipedia.org). All bureaucrats/stewards should be aware of this change in Firefox as it completely inhibits SUL. (Note that this has been the case for some time with Safari as well.) Cheers, — madman 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that is it exactly, thank you. Is there a bug filed for this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The following can be desysopped today as inactive for over a year. (no, this isn't a joke thread).

• CJLL Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Ludraman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Luigi30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Zoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I also removed Linuxbeak's bureaucrat right under the same provision using my steward access on Meta. MBisanz ^talk 13:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed Linuxbeak from the table on WP:CRAT and updated {{Bureaucrat timeline}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I requested desysop in January, intending to spend some time doing content work. I've barely done any of that and hadn't really wanted to come back to admin just yet, but there appears to be yet another coordinated attack on some Indian caste articles and on the people who work on them, and the few admins in that area are getting a bit swamped. So, as more hands are needed, can I please have the admin bit back? (After the usual 24 hours, of course) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not aware of any issues which would prevent this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yay! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries from my point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Got that twitch again...? Basket _Feudalist 20:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, that's just the spring in his step. --RexxS (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Time for bed! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

When users are blocked for good-faith violations of the username policy and request unblocking to change usernames, isn't it rather tedious to force them to go through the CHU process immediately after going through the unblocking process? Wouldn't it be more convenient for you guys to simply patrol CAT:RUCB and rename users directly from their own talk pages? As a casual observer, it seems that when a user is unblocked to change names, often they never get around to filing the request, or, if they do, fail to answer a follow-up question and have their request closed for lack of response... and then they just wind up stopping editing altogether. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Potentially, though there are a lot more administrators than bureaucrats and skeptical that it is worth expending much additional resource on these users. It might be helpful if users weren't unblocked until they had been renamed (a request could made be for them at WP:CHU by a third party with a note for the bureaucrat to unblock if they grant the rename). Also, there's no point unblocking a user with no edits so they can ask for a rename, which I see from time to time. Just tell them to create a new account with a valid name. The accounts in question are usually sole purpose promotional accounts and to be honest the rename is only a partial fix (it doesn't address the underlying WP:COI issue). At risk of failing somewhat to WP:AGF, they are very unlikely to be productive editors that are being lost. WJBscribe (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

... in early May for WT:Protected Page Editor. I know it's unusual to ask in advance, but it sometimes takes a while to get closers for these. I got no takers at WP:AN. I'm also asking at WT:RFA; anyone have an idea where else I might ask? - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping me near closing time and I should be able to do it. Not voting on it and don't plan to so might as well help close. Wizardman 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept a non-admin closer as part of the team, I have no problem helping out. I have no views one way or the other on the matter. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for any help anyone wants to give. I've been making a point for about a year now to ask if anyone had any objections to my being a closer (I'll probably stop now); you guys may or may not want to do the same . - Dank (push to talk) 11:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I used to be an active sysop but stopped using Wikipedia many years ago when I became extremely busy with schoolwork. As per my user talk page, I was desysopped in 2011 for inactivity. I continued to edit Wikipedia occasionally as an anon, but since I haven't had time to devote to admin-type activities, I haven't been logged in for a while.

When I was first desysopped, I saw the notice yet decided not to act on it (that is, not to request a resysop) for the time being, since there was absolutely no incentive to act soon. I continued to check my user talk page sporadically, and the next time I checked, I saw that a change in policy had permanently removed my right to request a resysop!

I know that the current written policy says I need a new RfA, but I think it's unfair that I was given <30 days' notice about the policy change, particularly given that the constituents affected by the policy change are precisely those people who are unlikely to log in within 30 days. Is it possible to resysop me under the old (2012) rules, which would not require a new RfA? --Galwhaa 04:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-'crat comment) This clearly looks like a legit request, but you might want to add the obligatory "not an April Fool's joke" to this. Assuming this isn't just some very dry humor, in which case I've just placed myself in the same boat as Dennis in the above thread. ;) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I got an email regarding this a couple days ago and advised him to come here to discuss it, so I can verify it is not a joke. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your edit history, and I'm sympathetic... but the community hasn't really left us with much leeway to bend the rules three months after the grace period expired. I'm not going to slap a "not done" on this, and will let other 'crats chime in, but unless I'm in the minority here I'm afraid I don't really see a way to stretch the grace period this far out. RfA is always an option (I know, they're not particularly fun), although I suspect you'll want to hold off on that while you get back into the swing of things; folks will want to first see some more editing time to reassure them that you're back to stay and have a good plan for how you intend to use the tools. 28bytes (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that you haven't logged in and edited since 2009 (other than your post here), and seeing as you were given 28 days notice, I don't see that any exceptions can be made. The community was pretty clear on this issue. If it had been just a few days after the grace period expired, I could see a possible exception being made, but not after three months. The advice given by 28bytes is good: spend a little time editing for a bit so you can get back into the swing of things, then put in a new RfA. I don't see anything particularly controversial in your history at first glance (I didn't do a super-intense review). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with 28bytes and Nihonjoe; it's a shame, but our hands are tied by policy on this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: if policy has been changed with regards to resysoping, why has the talk page notice not been updated to reflect this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy hasn't changed for users who went inactive for one year and up to the third year. If you are inactive for one year, you are desysopped, and pending a 24-hour wait period, you can request it back (up until you've had three years of uninterrupted inactivity). Once they have made no edits or logs for three years, they are considered long-term inactive and fall under the lengthy inactivity policy, where they would require a new RFA. Since he's been gone since 2009, he's been gone well over the limit and falls under lengthy inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying the message should be updated so it makes that clear, so that another message doesn't need to be pasted in 2 years when it could have been mentioned the first time. The notice says they can ask for resysop, but it doesn't say that's a limited time offer, so why not say that and be done? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the notification being modified to say that we have the lengthy inactivity policy now as well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, modify it to say that, and at 2 years 11 months of inactivity, add a final warning that they will not be able to request resysopping afterwards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had updated the notification template, but apparently dropped a step somewhere. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I regretfully agree with my colleagues that the community made a crystal-clear policy that doesn't give us any discretion. Sorry. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with my fellow bureaucrats on this one. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No two ways about it I'm afraid. It's a shame for an editor who hasn't edited for, what, four years who wants to come back to the project to edit (and admin it), but part of the reasoning behind the 3-year-limit was that those coming back after such an absence may need to be (fairly) re-assessed by the current community. We simply cannot make an exception in this (or any other such) case. Having said that, an editor who returns after four years is best advised to spend several months re-familiarising him- or herself with the current vogues and make themselves known to the community. Popping by to say they need admin rights after four years of absence is not entirely justifiable. So, in summary, we stick with the current policy, no deal, a new RFA would be required. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find where the policy about 3 years inactivity got written up, although I recall the RfC. Could someone point me to it? Does it preclude activity under a different name, or as an anon, from counting? In theory, I might be open to persuasion that a user who can prove participation in wikipedia without having logged into their account might be entitled to be treated in the same way as someone who had logged in to make the same edits. What do others think? WJBscribe (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see Moe has linked to the policy above: Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy inactivity "If an editor has had at least 3 years of uninterrupted inactivity (zero edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request". Does the reference to "editor" mean the user, not the account? WJBscribe (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

When I did the notifications last year, I did look for people who had changed accounts and counted them as active because they were active on the new/alternate account during the three year inactive period of the original account. I don't believe Galwhaa has been active under another account during this time though. In theory an IP edit should also count, but that seems to be pushing the levels of attenuation, what with proving identity and all. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose if this user has a static IP and there's checkuser data to confirm the edits that would one thing, but the picture would be rather murkier if we're talking home internet dynamic IP. WJBscribe (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Being the one that closed both policy RfCs on recratting and resysopping users, I believe it was implied that the editor in question was inactive, not the account. That being said, CheckUser can work on Dynamic IPs as well. If Galwhaa can provide the IPs they've edited under in the past to a Checkuser, the checkuser should be able to identify the client of the IPs and Galwhaa used on Wikipedia and if they match, it's likely to be Galwhaa.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If this person would make conversation, and make a believable statement of intention to rejoin the community, I am sure that we would reconfirm him. If a loophole is found to re-entitle a long inactive admin to admin privileges without evidence of him being in touch, then I'll be unimpressed. An IP edit from a computer he has access to would be unimpressive evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It was merely a suggestion.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've had a dynamic IP when I've made anon edits over the past few years, so it wouldn't work (for me) anyways. --Galwhaa 09:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser data wouldn't go back far enough - it isn't retained indefinitely QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-'crat comment) Well Wikipedia policy has changed drastically since when you were last active in 2006 (I remembered you from that time period). I think you should do some administrative related cleanup work or content work in the meanwhile to familiarize yourself with our updated guidelines and policies for a bit. I'm sure a crat would give you autopatrolled, reviewer and rollbacker status. As for the crats, something should be written up about how you would proceed with an RFA, or resysopping in cases like this as the rule of regaining the tools is simply vague here. A long inactive user would simply fail RFA in this current atmosphere. Secret ^account 02:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• If we're prepared to block people on the basis of the duck test, shouldn't we also be prepared to use it to do good, too? Current policy seems to me to permit us this leeway. Do the other Crats agree with this principle? --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. If you folks are looking for a way to grant this, my thoughts are this: here states in the "POLICY CHANGE APPROVED:" closing summary per item #2 "If an editor has become inactive for 1 year and gets procedurally desysopped, the editor has two years to make an edit, and/or request the bit back, before they are required to go through a reconfirmation RfA. That means a total of 3 years of zero edits before a reconfirmation RfA is in order.". Now, looking at Galwhaa's talk page, it looks like he was desysoped on July 9, 2011 according to this notification. IF he has "two years" from the time that he's desysoped - wouldn't that give the editor until July 9, 2013 to request the bit back? I'm not familiar with the user, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone - I'm just saying that if you want to grant the request, is that not a loophole worth considering? — Ched :  ?  09:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's any merit to my "loophole", you could always start Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mathwiz2020/Crat chat. I did notice that there was not a single oppose on his 2006 RfA. — Ched :  ?  09:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched, the whole policy was started in reaction to former administrator User:Polarscribe returning in 2012 since being inactive since 2008, using his position inappropriately, and having to promptly resign his tools again. The whole purpose of this policy being proposed and supported was to avoid users coming back after X amount of time (agreed to be 3 years) to get the tools back. The very first desysops for inactivity were July 2011 (which Galwhaa is a part of), so this loophole technically exists until July 2013 when there was 1 year prior of inactivity and 2 years after. That means, former administrators who have been inactive from 2002 to July 2010, who were inactivity desysopped fall under this loophole. Until then, the loophole exists, but it should not be exploited for the lack of clarity in the wording. The wording of "one year prior" is in reference to inactivity desyops (if you have no edits/logs in a year, you are desysopped), along with two subsequent years of inactivity. IMHO, the policy simply failed to clarify that the first desysops were only in 2011 and the policy should apply retroactively in regards to being inactive for many, many years. Users from 2003 should not be able to come back and use the same loophole because it hasn't been two years since their 2011 inactivity desysop. The spirit behind the policy shouldn't be go to the wayside because we can manipulate and lawyer around wordings. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moe. I admit that I'm not familiar with the Polarscribe incident - well, I think I read something about it at the time, but it wasn't something I really followed. As far as "policy", and "intent", and "the spirit" ... I know, I know, I know; and I wouldn't think about wp:boldly breaking that on my own even if I had the ability. I think it's a shame if the actions of one person make things more difficult for others though. As I said, I don't even know Galwhaa - but it's easy for me to see his situation. This "new" addition to policy isn't even 6 months old and we're saying ... "Opps - too bad, we changed the rules while you were out - sorry". I've just never been a big fan of changing the rules in the middle of the game. I didn't even say anything until I noticed a comment above mine. These guys are the most highly trusted people on our project, we elect them through a ridiculously high percentage of "supports" that even some (perhaps most) of our Arbs can't pass. If they get together and agree on a case by case basis about something - I'm not going to second guess them. I get the intent. I understand the spirit. I also know that trying to shoehorn every situation into a "one size fits all" set of rules that change on a daily basis is a huge part of the problem we're constantly trying to fix. One guy screws up, the community rushes to "make sure that never happens again", and when anyone else who's never done anything wrong gets back he's made to go through that "hell week" again. Yea, ... I get it Moe. No disrespect to you intended here in the least Moe - just speaking my mind is all. — Ched :  ?  10:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hell week again? I understand you've seen the original RfA? Jebus989^✰ 12:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If he goes through another RfA, he'll be judged by the far harsher 2013 standards, not the 2006 standards when it was considered much less of a big deal. Perhaps not hell week "again", but it definitely will be rigorous. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and that's really my point, the editor in question has never undergone such close scrutiny and passing an RfA in 2006 should be weighted against the huge increase in community expectations since then Jebus989^✰ 13:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

But we're not expecting every administrator who passed an RfA a long time ago to be reconfirmed under current standards for administrative conduct. The community has repeatedly rejected such proposals. Galwhaa is being refused adminship now under a pure technicality - he is an administrator in good standing who wants to use the tools, with no prior history of abuse, who will be a net asset to the project if given the tools again. I do not see why this statement of good intent means he has to go through a rigorous reconfirmation process again. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't "have" to do anything. But by community agreement his way back to being an Admin. is to apply via RfA. Previous good standing has nothing to do with it. He's been away too long, things have changed, he cannot just resume where he left off. This is what the community insisted was the way forward with such editors - quite rightly so IMO. Leaky Caldron 13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Riana, for my part I would hope that none of the 'crats are making this call based on a technicality; rather, we're trying to follow the wishes of what the community has asked us to do, and the community was pretty clear (for right or wrong) that they wanted to see a reconfirmation RfA for admins who've been away for a long period of time. 28bytes (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I'm betting that he came back and edited a while, most users would be very kind to him at RfA and give him the benefit of the doubt. One of the big concerns of giving admin back the bit after not being here for 3 years is simply that this place is a whole different kind of website than it was when I started in 2006. Admin are held to a higher standard all around, which is usually a good thing. If people see that he has hung around and edited for 3 to 6 months without issue, most will have no problem giving back the bit. There is a concern in the community that they don't want to see admin come in and make a null edit once a year, just so they can keep the "power" that comes with the bit. This ties into the whole "admin is admin for life" concerns, for starters. My impression is that the community is saying they want admin to be editors who are active here at least part of every year, even if they need to take a year or two off once in a while. But the community doesn't want admin who don't actually contribute here except at WP:BN to maintain their bit. Again, go edit some articles and I will be happy to support in a few months. So will others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Duck test for IP editing by absentee admins

My question above to the other Crats seems to have been lost in various subsequent discussions. I think it's important enough, as a principle, not just in this case, to need some careful discussion. I'm proposing that we use the duck test to ascertain whether IP edits during a period of admin "inactivity" are enough to restart the clock when we decide if they need a new RfX. In my opinion, it's within the policy. I also believe it's within the spirit of the RfC, as the contributors were worried about absentee, disengaged admins, rather than ones who were still here, but not logging in. However, I would like other crat opinions. I think it's worth discussing this in principle for now. There's no point looking at Galwhaa's (or any other's) case as a specific until we've settled the overall issue. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the duck test is a reasonable test case for what Basil Fawlty would have said was "stating the bleeding obvious", and perhaps in this case (and others potentially) we have such a duck. However, I'm reluctant to so quickly create a precedent that will be pointed at ad infinitum, and it kind of opens the doors for other "duck" tests, like closing RFAs a day early because it's so "obvious" they're admin material when, suddenly, a new piece of information could swing it the other way on day seven. I like your style mind you, it's good to try to keep some level of discretion in the hands of 'crats, despite the agreed approach, is no bad thing. But in my opinion, we ought not set out on this new path and disregard the wishes of the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to chuck a small, insignificant spanner in your collective thoughts. I don't agree and surely it was a level of discretion that created the mayhem in the original case (or a similar one around the same time). I don't think you need to look for reasons to allow this applicant, rather just stick to whatever the policy is. All this talk of loopholes and expressions of regret aren't necessary. He's been away nearly three and a half years and the first thing is ask for Admin rights to be returned? Leaky Caldron 16:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It didn't throw a spanner in mine. I agree, I find it strange (and have noted it previously just here) that people suddenly returning to Wikipedia after years who suddenly need the tools? Really? Why not just try editing the encyclopedia for a bit.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think editing in any situation (as an IP, as the +sysopped account, or with a legal sock) probably should count towards the activity of the individual, so yes, that would "reset the clock;" that would satisfy the the spirit of the law (ensuring that we have engaged admins that haven't completely checked out of what editing on the site involves). The difficulty would be in proving that, but the onus is on the returning individual to establish their editing. Maybe a combination request by the desyopped account and the IP, with an agreement (from both "accounts") for a validating CU? I kinda hate using the CheckUser tool as a validation (especially since it means it can't be handled strictly by the bureaucrats), but that seems like the most straightforward method for validating a claim that an account and an IP are one person. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Being persnickety, there is nothing in the Wikipedia:CheckUser#Policy that permits the use proposed above. "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects.". Trying to link a returning desysopped user/unregistered user combo doesn't fit within the policy defined use for CU. Leaky Caldron 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be why I kinda hated the idea, I suppose. :) I was grasping at a solution that would work best from a "making sure it's the same person" standpoint. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why bend over backwards, or indeed bend at all? The community agreed a policy, why look for holes? The editor has done nothing in their name for 41 months and asks for their rights back in their first edit - pretty much an example what the community said it didn't want absentee former Admins. to do. Leaky Caldron 19:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leaky has a point. Checkusers generally decline "please prove me innocent"-type CU requests, which this would be analogous to, as being outside of their governing policy (and pretty useless, since CU can't prove anything for sure). My personal (non-crat, ymmv, etc) opinion is also that editing by people with accounts should be done with those accounts, and a user who declines to use their account for years' worth of editing is basically abandoning their right to claim "credit" for those edits. If we're looking for proof that a user has been "active", we're not going to find it in an anonymous edit which could maybe, be associated with a computer similar to the account user's but which the user chose not to take responsibility/credit for.

I also agree with Rambling Man that there's no apparent desperate need to bend over backwards and find loopholes in community-formed policy to re-sysop admins who have been gone so long that the inactivity policy kicked in - I can't think of a situation where it would be good judgment for someone to return from literally years of inactivity, with no idea of anything that's gone on here for three, four, five, six years here, and return immediately to trying to admin without taking time to familiarize themselves with the community and its policies as they currently stand. I understand people feeling that they might never get they bits back if they had to RFA, but that shouldn't trump the common-sense fact that if you don't know what our policies are, you can hardly enforce them until you've demonstrated that you do. I'm actually surprised to see some 'crats pushing to find loopholes here, given how often and loudly they've told us that they are bound by the letter of the community's will and don't feel they're allowed to use their personal judgment or interpretations. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the policy was created to consider the edits of that particular account, and I think it could be stretched to include previously declared alternate accounts as well. To count previously unlinked accounts means they were editing without the scrutiny of being that same person, then linking it back for the benefit when it is convenient. I strongly feel this is not what the community had in mind when they discussed and approved the current policy. Be it IP or named account, the same would seem to hold true. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis here. If the other accounts and/or static IP addresses were known beforehand, then they could be used. Trying to link them afterward, though, stretches to a breaking point the intent of the policy which was discussed extensively and made very clear when implemented. I also don't like the idea of trying to change CU policy to accommodate such requests. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I know that other wikis have different customs, but it is against enwiki CU norms to CU someone just to prove that they are the same person when no abuse has occurred. --Rschen7754 19:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like anyone is going to grant this request, but I don't think I necessarily agree with you Dennis and I don't want to shut the door on granting a request based on activity under a different name/IP if that could be persuasively demonstrated by another user in future even if not previously declared. If someone decided to edit to stop using their old admin account and edit instead with another account with no overlap in editing by the two, that would be in keeping with our policies. I could imagine someone doing this if they got burned out working in a high pressure admin area and wanted to refocus for a while. If they later (after the desyssoped admin account had not edited for over 3 years) posted here with both accounts to show that: (1) they were an admin under one account who was desysopped for inactivity; and (2) they had in the meantime been editing with the other account - I might well be minded to grant the request. That wouldn't to my mind breach either the letter of the policy or reasons behind it. The user in question would be as familiar with enwiki policy as had they continued to edit with the same account. WJBscribe (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, I think the linkage is important. If I only edit with User:Pharmboy or User:Farmer Brown, then they could arguably count because I have them linked on my user page, and those are redirected to my main account (a note there would be just as effective). If I edited as some unlinked name, then I think it should not, as you have chosen to be disassociated with your primary account. WP:LEGITSOCK lists a few valid reasons for not linking the accounts, but being a burned out admin isn't one of them. Obviously I wouldn't hit them for socking if there was no overlap, but I can't see considering it for continuity either. You make your choice when you secretly create that unlinked account, which is abandoning your prior identity. This is essentially a WP:CLEANSTART, and that would void any claim on the admin bit, or any other "rights" your former account had. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
      • This brings up an interesting point. You'll find my name on Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive. Yet here I am. A combination of burn-out, job changing, continuing education, moving to a new residence, and family-related problems has kept me off Wikipedia. But I do pop in from time to time - almost always from my work computer and so I use this sock account. Come August I'm slated to be de-sysopped and de-cratted. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not exactly difficult to avoid, though. If you remained inactive on your primary account between now and August and got the notification, all you would have to do is say ":I'm here! ~~~~" and you could avoid the hassle all together. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Worst case scenario: you get lumped in with a bunch of other inactive accounts and get desysopped, and then someone realizes that it was a mistake and you get repromoted. Your edits as Public Sock most assuredly count towards the activity of Useight the individual, not just Useight the account. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Completely agree. It is obvious the two accounts are linked and Useigh is active. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• It would appear that checkusers have generally agreed to run checks to resolve similar situations (Brandon, Hersfold, Dominic), although at least one current arb has voiced concern over the practice (AGK). As to the policy, I read Wikipedia:CHECKUSER#Grounds_for_checking as providing a non-exclusive list of circumstances under which Checkuser may be run and list of specific circumstances under which it may not be used (for example, to prove innocence at SPI). Given that other policies, such as Wikipedia:IPEXEMPTCONDITIONS#CONDITIONS, specifically permit the use of Checkuser outside of the non-exclusive list of grounds, I would interpret its use at CHU or BN as a permissible use to further legitimate, non-abusive aims of the project. As to pre or post association with a new account for linkage purposes, I believe that is a fact-specific inquiry left to the crat handling a request to satisfy himself that the request is being processed in accordance with policy. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)