Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Sadly I wasn't able to write this line yesterday night: I would like to start in a few minutes with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/wikignome. Would somebody flag me? mabdul (public) 05:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Realizing you can probably only do this on the weekend when you're free in real life, I've nudged the crat list. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Special:UserRights/wikignome by Pakaran. --Dweller (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing down parallel discussion. Please keep it in one place.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This bot flag is not within the policy of bots, and MBisanz says such on the RFBA; as such, this bot flag should not have been granted, and the task should not have been okayed. If a user wants to remove his edits from recent changes scrutiny, then he or she should discuss those edits within the project being impacted, in this case AFC, not get a bot flag for a non-bot account to avoid scrutiny. BAG does not have the community consensus to aid an editor in masking edits from recent changes by making a non-bot account a temporary bot account for a weekend outside of recent changes. If BAG wants to do this, they should seek community consensus for authorizing bureaucrats to give temporary bot flags for users who do not have community consensus for a taks that they want removed from recent changes. A discussion at recent changes would also be appropriate. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC) The relevant discussion is at the BRFA. There's really not much point opening a separate one here, except to increase drama, which I'm sure is not your intention. --Dweller (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The flag can be removed again. Weekend over, time for AfC work, too... mabdul 17:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, all, a user (User:Warrington) popped up on Drmies's talk page recently, asking about a name change. It seems that, while he used to use the name Warrington on enwiki, he uses the name Hafspajen on other wikis. He'd like his Warrington account to be renamed to Hafspajen for consistency, but the catch is that he's used the enwiki Hafspajen account (created through SUL, presumably) for 170 edits. Is it still possible for a crat to usurp his Hafspajen account and rename Warrington to Hafspajen, integrating the new one into SUL? The rules for usurpation say no if the account to be usurped has edits, but I figured if both are the same person... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's no problem if the accounts are the same person. It's not really usurpation, more like two consensual renames. He'll lose the 170 edits though; they'll end up attributed to something like User: Hafspajen (renamed). WJBscribe (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked him about that; he said he was all right with it. Should I tell him to make a CHU/U (or CHU/S?) request? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please ask him to make a WP:CHUU request, so that it gets archived correctly, and edit it with his Hafspajen account to consent to the rename (and also prove that he owns the unified login). It should be done quite quickly. Pakaran 20:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there were some issues with the template, but I think they're ironed out, and he's made edits to the page with both accounts. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done @CHUU. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I’ve been on wikibreak since February 2012, but would like to start getting back into things. Last month my sysop privileges were provisionally suspended due to that year+ of inactivity, so I’d like to formally request reinstatement. Sorry for the hassle, and thanks very much. — Satori Son 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. No hassle. MBisanz ^talk 15:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no issues with this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No concerns from my perspective. Pakaran 01:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-crat comment) For the record, the crats have to wait 24 hours after a new amendment to the resysopping policy passed late last year. --Rschen7754 02:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. Pakaran 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Have a good one, all. — Satori Son 13:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hdt83 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hello, I am requesting a resysop of administrative tools after they were removed due to inactivity. I've been busy due to schoolwork over the past year but I am finishing up and am able to contribute more. If you need any additional information please let me know. Thanks. --Hdt83 ^Talk 01:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me to go in 24 hours. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Dweller (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Hey,

Can I grab my admin perms back?

Thanks, ~fl 10:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Should be fine to go in 24 hours; Fl was desysopped February 3, 2013 as inactive. Fl, you may want to read WP:UPDATE since you haven't been an active editor in a while. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 13:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to desysop me when you have a mo, under whatever particular shade of grey the cloud. Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Boo. :( EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL :) I was just distracted by email and was going to come back and remove this as I'm in dialogue with Thumperwad and apparently it's half of one and a dozen of the other. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but my opinion is more important. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would take this occasion to suggest to our 'crats that they consider implementing what we've done on Meta, which is delaying implementation of desysops for 24 hours when it is made in the heat of the moment (we do it more broadly, but that's because we can't restore it like it can be done here, policy-wise). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• If he asks for it back today, does he have to wait 24 hours? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Now, there's a good point for those that love the granular detail! And with luck, we can have it put into policy! Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  I suggest a 30 day RFC on the subject before adding it to any policy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  An RFC closed by a 'crat only and then also passed to ARBCOM for ratification. And if I'm going to get all Douglesy on your arse - buried in peat (geddit!) for thirty years before being shown the light of day. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  I've closed all policy related RfCs in this topic so far. I would offer closing this one too.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• As an instigator of that policy, my opinion is that it wasn't put into place for the purpose of situations like this, and WP:IAR would be pretty uncontroversial. For full disclosure, Pedro was my RfA nom, so I might be seen as biased, but I'm confident I would hold the same opinion even if had instead opposed me. Of course, my opinion and 2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee, but it is what it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• These sections are possibly the most entertaining thing I've read here in a while. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have two semesters left before I finally, after seven years on and off, get my degree! Of course I need as little distraction as possible, and need to cut back on some areas as I have a very hectic major and I need to step up my GPA if I want to go to a competitive and top ranked graduate school. Can the tools be removed safely from my account and just get autopatrolled and patrolled status (please no rollback)? I probably will request them back once my school situation stabilizes. I will be editing once in a while, but rather focus on content and other minor work. I knew I was going to be inactive eventually when I reran for RFA, I just didn't realize it would be this early (I expected a 2014 graduation). Thanks Secret ^account 22:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it, can this request be on hold for a few weeks while I ponder over it, I have two weeks of of school, and then the first week of class isn't really hectic. I know I would likely end up being inactive, but I don't want any drama spill over because of my past history. Secret ^account 23:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As I understand policy, if you resigned now and didn't sock or edit war between now and your graduation, there would be no risk of drama spillover from pre-desysop history. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Matt, I wouldn't anticipate any drama. You recently passed RfA, so you obviously have the support of the community. It would seem to be a pretty easy case when you want the bits back. Hate to lose you with the bits so soon after getting them, but real world education does come first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a few weeks of free time, I probably will request it as soon as summer classes start, and I won't be at Wikipedia at all aside maybe some minor edits for fall semester. I'm already cutting back the use of the tools however. Secret ^account 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• My suggestion would be to just not use the tools if you've got a stretch where you're busy with other things. Especially now that there's a 24-hour delay for resysoping requests, it would save you (and the 'crats) time to do it that way, rather than have to open another thread here once you're ready to get back into things. Congratulations on your pending graduation! 28bytes (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, unless you're expecting to be inactive for a year, it'd be simpler for everyone to just keep the flag. Who knows, maybe you'll randomly pop back unexpectedly and find some vandalism to squash. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Just a quick comment from me while I have time to briefly pop in. I'd say it shows very sound judgment to take a little time off for higher priorities like this, and I think that can only strengthen our confidence in you. Wishing you the very best for the degree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the flag, you're an excellent asset to the project. Unless there's a serious issue with security of your account, just keep the flag for those few times you may need it. Don't be a stranger, but good luck with everything! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• In fact, I need the flag removed now. I just got really terrible news for one of my classes this semester and I need to focus on school more seriously. The tools are too distracting from other stuff unfortunately. I'll still be editing for the next few weeks, but I know when I start doing cleanup work, I somehow hit a backlog and then I spend hours cleaning the backlog out and such and I can't afford to do that when I need to be focused on these important issues. I don't mind the 24 hour wait if I do come back from expected inactivity. Thanks for everyone support here. Secret ^account 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay Secret, it's done, I've added as many editing flags (e.g. rollbacker etc) as I can and removed your sysop flag. As discussed above, this is in no way a desysop under a cloud; I very much wish you all the best and hope that, whenever you're comfortable, come back and request the flag. In the meantime, take care, and we look forward to seeing you around wherever possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It sounded like he didn't want rollback? Enigma^msg 19:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Well it's courtesy (as far as I'm concerned) I provide sysops who request a desysop for personal circumstances. If Secret wants no rights at all, I'm sure he can ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm referring to his request. I didn't say anything about no tools at all; merely rollback. "Can the tools be removed safely from my account and just get autopatrolled and patrolled status (please no rollback)" Enigma^msg 19:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Done (-rollbacker). Thanks Enigmaman, that's what happens when you try to fix things up nicely after getting up five hours too early. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Yea no point in having the tools if you are going to be barely active soon. Secret ^account 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

        I'd like to extend my thanks to you for the professional manner I have observed in your role as an administrator, and for the hours of selfless service you've given to improve this encyclopedia. Mostly, I'd like to wish you the very best in all of your future endeavors. My76Strat (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I was desysopped a while back, through self request [1]. I did have a change of heart and commented that perhaps, after a few bits of time of reflection, [2] - and discussion [3] maybe this was a WP:THROWING_TOYS_FROM_PRAM request. I'd (marginally) like the bits back, and am happy to wait 24 hours (indeed 24 days) for discussion. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's dumb to wait 24 hours to resysop like this, but hey, this is uncharted territory. Thoughts from fellow 'crats? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm frankkly loving the uncharted territory. Many waterfalls, already seen by the natives. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick, Pedro, withdraw your resysop request and run for 'crat! Then you can resysop yourself in 7 days (talk about uncharted territory...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lovin' the idea Floq, but running for Rollbacker is more likely :) Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I certainly prefer waiting the day, mainly because if we didn't then we'd start seeing requesting a desysop, putting a retired template on their talk page, and coming back six hours later acting like nothing happened after 50 users begged them to reconsider. Wizardman 23:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't see this Wizardman. Can't blame you - I didn't see Chris' (revised) comments. Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done the resysoping. But this is a bit silly (2 hour gap between desysop and resysop), so please put more thought behind your requests next time. Maxim_(talk) 23:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi there. I am a former "resigned" administrator from a little over 2 years ago, as I simply wasn't going to be active enough at the time to deal with talk page messages (My last resignation message was a bit cryptic). I also resigned and came back 1 time before for essentially the same reason (I first become an admin in 2005).

If people are hesitant about restoring the bit due to the time frame and my lack of recent edits, I completely understand (I'm all for full disclosure). In that case I would prefer this be interpreted as my intention to have my bit restored some day and as a way of shocking the current round of Bureaucrats less the next time I ask (or for the next RFA if that is what is needed). I can expand on my request if desired but I've already wrote more than most requests on this page. Thank you for your time! Ryan Norton 04:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) Hi Ryan, good to see you back. There should seemingly be nothing wrong with your request since you requested your adminship be removed under no particular cloud of controversy. A couple of notes you should know about inactivity that have changed:

• If you make no edits or logs in one year, you are considered inactive and are desysopped. This is procedural and you can request it back once you return.
• If you make no edits or logs in three years, you are considered long-term inactive and you must go through a new RFA to request your adminship back, no matter what the reason for desysopping was.

Since you returned in under three years, you are not required a new RFA, so your request should be granted. Something else you may want to note is a 24 hour grace period which we observe after a request has been made. Once a twenty-four hour time period has passed, and there is nothing is brought up that would cause concern, your administrative tools should be restored. WP:UPDATE may help you as your guide back as to what has changed since you left. Check back here at around April 25, 04:00 (UTC). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. Good to go in just over half a day unless another crat dissents. --Dweller (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Everything appears in order from my perspective. Pakaran 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• I also agree. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Ayuh. -- Avi (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yowzers, did you time that to the second? :) -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Efficiency is my middle name. :) 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello - I just interrupted my automatic desysopping by posting to say that I didn't mind it. Since it's been about two years since I was able to spend regular time on WP regularly, I feel that it would be better for my account to lose the tools - I don't like the thought of it sitting dormant and irregularly checked but with the capacity to do any damage. I'm also out of touch with current admin consensus and would want to get back up to speed before any return to the use of the tools. I'd appreciate it if someone would desysop this account. Cheers! Gonzonoir (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy your break, and feel free to swing back by here anytime if you want get back into the swing of things. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

After taking some time away, cooling off a bit, recovering my energy and enthusiasm, I would like to regain my admin rights and resume serving the community. Thanks for your understanding. Dreadstar ☥ 22:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No concerns. A little time off to blow off steam is good for anyone. 28bytes (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I also support this, even though I am not an administrator. And welcome back as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I enthusiastically support Dreadstar's return. They probably want to wait the 24 mandatory waiting period, but I don't see any issues that would prevent the crats from handing you back the tools after that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I see no issues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Too hot-headed to carry the mop at the moment. Apparently, he has quit in a tantrum more than once. Wait a couple of years to mature a bit, then you'll be good to go. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't give credence to someone who logs out to edit like you have. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "give credence to". I think you ought to judge the message not the messenger. And I think you should know that I have been editing exclusively as an ip for several years. Regards,— 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch; it doesn't pay to edit this late at night. At any rate, it seems this contradicts that you are a lowly IP editor who is observing the matter. So, either you are lying about being a simple IP editor or you're lying about being a former Arb. Which one is it? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Moe, I think you need to get a bit more sleep, or spend a bit more time reading the enyclopedia. Either way, it's not very nice to go around calling people liars. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm deeply wounded that you consider we IPs "lowly". 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Most IPs aren't. Most IPs are innocent editors and those who don't know how to edit properly. A former arbitration committee member picking fights on Jimbo's talk page as an IP, well.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

¡Madre mía! Go to bed, Moe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Moe... it's sarcasm. Normally you're one of the more clueful ones around here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't an RFA, but an request for resysoping after a voluntary desysop. The only consideration is whether the relevant desysop was under a cloud or not. -- KTC (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was peeing it down on my talk page, which is where he brought his illustrious career to a halt. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You're getting lazy, MBisanz! Two minutes late on this one! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, we have the laziest bureaucrats evar! EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The outcome at the current RfA is obvious, and there is no obvious need to keep it open. I've !voted there so can't snow-close as a non-crat, but someone should, Crat or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't qualify for SNOW ... but the candidate should realllllyyyyy request closure (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not what SNOW is for. The candidate also seemed to be interested in the feedback he's getting, so why on earth would you want to snow-close it? It's Piotrus decision whether he wants the RfA to run its course or whether he wants to withdraw. He doesn't need a babysitter deciding for him, which is what a snow-closure for an experienced user is. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't meet the technical qualifications for snow but it is just turning into a dogpile with repetitive rationales, and that is usually the point someone's feelings get hurt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm recused here. MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis: Ask him on his talk page if he wants to withdraw or if he wants to let it run a full 7 days? Rgrds. --64.85.214.83 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this should be left to run and there's no need to contact him. The editor has been here for years and used to be an admin - he clearly knows what he is doing and is perfectly capable of making his own decision to withdraw QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

...and I'll be honest: how he responds at the close of it (one way or the other) will say a lot about him. If he says "feckit...if this is how they feel about me, I'm gone", or if he actually learns and changes ... the choice is his. He is the author of his own fate on this one more than any other RFA I've seen (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I do worry once the rationales get redundant, and this has. He seems to be a very worthwhile editor, which is not the same thing as a good admin candidate, and I just don't want to see him leave from a dogpile that didn't serve a purpose. Last I looked, he is taking it in stride, but you never know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm currently trying to register a unified login for my german wikipedia user (mschwerin). This fails because there is a conflict with the english wikipedia user (also User:mschwerin). As this user is blocked, would it be possible to rename/delete/whatever that account, so I can get the global username mschwerin?

Thanks, Maximilian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.69.81 (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The following can be desysopped as inactive as of May 1, 2013:

• Grondemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• JodyB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Poeloq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Turnstep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Innocent iwbot where there is a request to remove the bot flag from Innocent iwbot. JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done by WilliamH. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize that there have been changes to the inactive sysop policy. It is unclear to me whether inactivity is defined as the total absence of edits or logged actions, or just significant ones. My last edit was in 2011, archiving my talk page. I understand if you do not accept that as an edit, but if you do, I would appreciate a re-sysopping. In any case, I will leave it up to your (collective) judgement. Thank you. --Bratsche | talk 18:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) There should be nothing barring you from a re-sysop. The change was that there shouldn't be a period of three years of inactivity (no edits/log), otherwise it would require a new RFA (1 year of inactivity also results in a temporary de-sysop pending your return/request for the tools back). The quality or meaningfulness of your edit(s) aren't measured in regards to inactivity. I would recommend going through WP:UPDATE to see what has changed, though. Come back in about twenty-four hours and your request will probably have been granted. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

this BN thread may be relevant, but I haven't looked at specific time and date stamps in this particular case - but I'm not a 'Crat either. — Ched :  ?  19:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding of the policy is that any edit == an edit, and the policy is very liberal on those points. I agree that WP:UPDATE is a must view, the place has changed a great deal over the last couple of years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• It is obviously up to the 'crats and the policy is very liberal, tho if you ask me somebody that hasn't edited in pretty much 5 years should have to go thru a new RfA. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Technically you've made one single edit in the last three years beside this request (to your talk page). But without wishing to prejudice this discussion one way or another, your last real contribution to the encyclopedia was in April 2009. I believe that technically you will still be re-sysoped within 24 hours, but purely out of curiosity, I wonder if you'd mind telling us why you feel you need the sysop flag after all this inactivity? You definitely don't need to answer this question by the way. I'm just curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • When I started on Wikipedia, Bratsche was easily one of the best administrators in the project and a example role model for people who was new to the project, including myself. I'm more than happy to see his name here requesting his tools, he just needs to do the usual readings on policy changes like all other inactive administrators do. If I'm not mistaken I think he became inactive because of school/university. I trust his request here and maybe confirm the account. Secret ^account 20:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt Bratsche's abilities back in the day, I'm just curious why someone would come back to regain tools that they haven't used for more than five years. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Back in the day happens to be February 2006 pretty much. That's a long, long time ago. I think it's a legitimate question to ask somebody that hasn't been significantly active in over 7 years why they have suddenly decided to ask for their rights back and I think it's interesting, if only for statistical analysis in what makes people suddenly come back and wish for an active role in the more "meta" side of the project, don't you think? Obviously, they can choose to just not answer it :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Observation. And this isn't in support of one side or the other, just a thought. "Back in the day" meant pretty much that if you worked hard for the project, you were fair and didn't screw up, then it was a mindset of "Admin. for life". The S.O.P changed after the fact for many admins. Now I know there was a 2010-2011(?) RfC in which the community decided it was best that this (admin for life) shouldn't be the case - and overwhelmingly so. RfA can be an intensely emotional experience, perhaps now more-so than ever. I can understand the thought "I didn't do anything wrong, why am I losing some of my abilities?" There is a great appreciation to being able to see deleted material for many folks. It's also satisfying to be able "protect" a page from disruption. I could go on, but at this point I'm just rambling - so I leave my thoughts as they stand. — Ched :  ?  22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no problem answering a few questions, as I anticipated there would be some legitimate questions surrounding my request. First, yes I stopped editing due to university commitments. Second, I've paid close attention to the site during the past several years, so it's not like I'm totally unfamiliar with Wikipedia in the modern age. Third, my editing interests have always been more on the "meta" side rather than making large contributions to any one subject area, so I would prefer to have the admin tools at my disposal because that's what I've enjoyed doing in the past. There's really no interesting explanation for my request other than I have some free time on my hands, and I'd like to return to editing and sysopping. If the bureaucrats feel like my edits do not pass muster to regain those tools, then so be it. I've read through the policy changes and the relevant discussion, and I understand the thought behind the inactive administrator policy. Although I will note it is a little odd to think that if I had just logged in to make those few minor edits that I've completed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. For the bureaucrats: Bratsche (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) --Bratsche | talk 06:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed you wouldn't; it is very relaxed what we consider to be active and inactive. The very same policy that considers you inactive for one year and long-term inactive for three years (requiring a new RFA) is, in fact, based on whether you make a single edit. We do have users who regularly appear to be coming up as a year inactive only to return to make a single edit and leave (or are desysopped for a year of inactivity, return to get their bit back, and leave again). It's a known flaw in the system and one I feared once we did start this policy. The fact is though the only way an inactive policy would go through is if there was complete and utter inactivity, as compared to no administrative inactivity (or no legitimate editing). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • What is the purpose of the rule that this is a "flaw" in the system? I was not especially active when it was approved, but my understanding is that the purpose of the rule was mainly to stop inactive accounts from being hijacked. If that's the reason for it, as long as the account hasn't been hijacked, what is wrong with someone doing that? I've had periods of inactivity due to real life, but were I ever to hit up close to a year (and I don't think I've gone more than a few months in a stretch), you can bet I'd make an edit. --B (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for taking the time to reply :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done It's been 24 hours since the request was files and it appears to have been made in compliance with policy, so I've resysopped. Please do be careful as you get back up to speed. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Very glad to see you back, Bratsche. I remember your care and conscientiousness back in the stirring days of the Bogdanov Affair. I'll be surprised if you've lost any of it. Bishonen | talk 14:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

Hey, would someone be able to close this successful RFA? It's been almost twelve hours since it expired, and so I was wondering if anyone knew about it. Thanks again for your hard work, and see you all around! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. WilliamH (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just remember Kevin that RFA's are at least 7 days - a 12 hour delay in closing causes no injury (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I was a few minutes shy of the notice, which I now just saw. Oh well, thanks for the reminder! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is to inform the bureaucrats that all usernames will become unified across every Wikimedia Project and that the usernames will become global starting May 27. This means local bureaucrats will no longer have the ability to rename or usurp users.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a relevant link. Graham87 09:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just usurpation. Special:RenameUser will no longer work locally so all renames will be done on meta. WJBscribe (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Far too many changes all at once for my tastes - but maybe I'm just at an age where I want things to all go back to the way they used to be. (see: WP:ECHO for reference to "too many changes", which I realize is different than the topic here). And if I get renamed "User:Ched~en" here simply because there's a "User:Ched" on the French wikipedia - boy am I gonna be having a hissy-fit. — Ched :  ?  15:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to tell us to turn down the music and get off your lawn? ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Ched, this is a foundation-level initiative, so there isn't much we can do; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Avi ... wait. Which is at a foundation level? The missing notification bar? The 'Crats ability to rename? ... or are you saying I really am going to be "User:Ched~en" ... Cause if it's the last one - I want time to go to something like "User:Ched#1" or something. Ya know - the "Foundation" really does need to stop and think about WP:WER, and I'm not being sarcastic or humorous on that. If it's their intention to drive away all the adults just so the kids have a playground to run amuck on .. then they may well be headed in the right direction. — Ched :  ?  16:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And if I find out that MZM is behind this missing orange bar .. boy is that young man gonna get an earful from me ... errr ... I mean "screen-ful" — Ched :  ?  16:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good news, everyone! Writ Keeper was kind enough to create a script that lets you keep the old orange bar. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js I like the new system, but at least you have a choice now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when did they remove the orange bar?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Today. See Wikipedia:Notifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been a most unusual day. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

m:OBOD --MZMcBride (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Rats. Now I have to come up with another April Fools joke for next year. :p—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • Global SUL is a foundation-level initiative. If you are the most active "Ched" in Wikimedia, you shouldn't have to worry. Moreover, you actually have the current SUl for "Ched" and are merged on most projects, so you are almost certainly going to own global SUL Ched. There are four unattached Cheds (commons, es, fr, and ru). So if RuWiki Ched is not you, likely that person becomes Ched~ruwiki. But the foundation is firm that we must go to a global SUL, so conflicts must have some form of resolution. -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmm, what if people actually have a username which currently ends in ~enwiki? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • In the event they have the username something~enwiki and don't own the SUL (highly unlikely, as this would imply there was a "something~enwiki" registered on a project other than enwiki) then they would be renamed something~enwiki~enwiki. QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
          • QuiteUnusual, that scenario would be quite unusual. :p—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

DerHexer made a flowchart of how we should handle SUL Finalization in the leadup to the switchover. MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a list of all enwiki users who will lose out as a result of SUL Finalisation and be renamed to User:Foo~enwiki? It would seem a good idea (especially if we want to retain these users!) to send talkpage/email notification to them and invite them to choose a new global name. I realise the same result will occur if we don't warn them in advance, but it would be courteous to do it if we are able... WJBscribe (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• My account says I'm in migration. I can't seem to merge the accounts. I think I own the SUL though.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Not yet. James said he's working on it, but I'm not sure he'll have a list before the change occurs. Also, he said people will be notified. I just don't know if it will be before or after the change. Cyber, you own the SUL and the only way you could theoretically lose it is if the zero edit hiwiki user of the same name becomes a bureaucrat or checkuser before the change occurs. MBisanz ^talk 12:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  Howso?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  It isn't going to happen, so don't worry about it QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yea, but I'm still curious what would give them that right to take my SUL if they were a Bureaucrat or CheckUser.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  You can't argue with the code! Sysop or bureaucrat status takes higher precedence than edit count. --Stephen 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  Just wondering, does there exist a case of two functionaries fighting for the same name? The closest I know of is Stefan2, but they're neither an admin on the English Wikipedia nor on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  James says there is. I think there used to be a Taxman admin and a Taxman bureaucrat, but they resolved it. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  I still remember the case of Ndiver from frwiki, who is User:Ndiverprime here because User:Ndiver objected to renaming. Does this mean that Ndiver will automatically be moved to Ndiver~enwiki, and the SUL user is free to usurp the name now? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, that is my understanding. Perhaps more problematic are examples such as this one, which I'm sorry to say results from a rename I did before we gave sufficient thought to the likelihood of SUL finalisation and how conflicts would one day be resolved. Because I renamed an enwiki user with more edits to the name "Islander", the svwiki user who registered and edited with that name for some time previously will lose out become Islander~svwiki. Not the result I had in mind :-(. WJBscribe (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  I've done a couple of those as well, so don't beat yourself up too much. Have you thought of asking en.wiki Islander to give up the name? That was one thing I did for people who just wanted placeholder's; get them to agree to give up the name in advance if SUL finalization occurred. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've created an FAQ page for this SUL finalization: Wikipedia:Unified login/Finalization. Don't hesitate to spread the word and share the text (and correct it because I'm not a native speaker). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DerHexer! I've gone through and copyedited it all. — Scott • talk 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

While on the subject of names, I have a proposal which will help stave off the otherwise inevitable problem that "good" names will be depleted. See User naming convention proposal--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Tools

Now that the Crat's responsibilities are being reduced, maybe now is the time to consider splitting up the Admin tools in some way, to let some editors get the editor based tools to deal with history merges, deletes, etc. and a different "rank" that has those tools and the block tools. I know it is a perennial topic, but the timing might be better now. Maybe "Crats" get the block tools. Of course, that means a lot of admin would have to get the crat bit by some means that is likely to be problematic, but not all admin are interested in blocking, and many non-admin would pass RFA if not for the block tool. Just a thought. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This does remove the main concern I've had to lowering RFB standards or otherwise breaking up the toolkit, so I'm generally in favor of it. MBisanz ^talk 14:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, you're seriously suggesting that the countervandalism tools should be moved over to 'crats? That all admins who have any interest in countervandalism would have to go thru a RfB to be allowed to continue their work? Said RfB where they'll get opposed because they're not a good fit for promoting new admins or bots? ... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if this change was implemented, I think the voter attitude at RfB would change drastically. Frankly, I'd say it's a great idea. It would seriously rejuvenate the oft-inactive RfX process. Of course, there would probably have to be some kind of transitional period so we could get enough people promoted to crat to be able to deal with spamming and vandalism and the like. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If this goes through, be prepared for an immense surge of RFBs by antivandal admins. I'm talking on the order of 50+ simultaneous RFBs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that CUs would have to be crats or have the blocking tool added to them. Countervandalism benefits from having a lot of admins. --Rschen7754 18:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And be prepared for most of them failing for lack of content work, lack of the bureaucrat-like behavior that the community expects from Bureaucrats, etcetera. If this idea was considered seriously, one of two things would have to be adopted: a) allow all current admins who desire to keep doing antivandalism work to obtain the 'crat rights by simple request or b) make all current admins 'crats and in any case c) seriously rethink the 'crat promotion procedure. I'm not exactly sure what we'd be gaining thru this massive undertaking. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The primary role of the bureaucrat will remain to identify and implement community consensus with regard to RfX's, no? -- Avi (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's what I was thinking. I think changing the sysop flag just to compensate for the bureaucrats loosing a right is a Bad Thing. We'll be just fine without being able to rename people, we don't need to be consoled... EVula // talk // ☯ //

• No one is suggesting consoling, or even just moving the block tool to Crats instantly, but now is a good time to consider something in the way of changing the structure of the tools, since the fine line between Crat and Admin just got thinner. There are valid reasons to split the purely editing tools from the vandal tools, and now may be a good time to discuss the idea. Whether it stays two levels, or goes to three, I will leave to the discussion, but change is often easiest to get when there is already more change happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• But we've only just concluded a 3 month RFC on RfA reform which included looking at alternative tool set arrangements. Just because 'crats are loosing a fairly uncontroversial function does not make this a good time to discuss what amounts to a sizeable upheaval. Leaky Caldron 14:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but I don't believe that we were aware of this change to the crat toolset back when the RfC was going on. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis mentioned "rank", albeit in quotes. That's all I need to see I'm afraid to know that this is not one of his best ideas. "Rank" implies selection, bureaucratic process, badges, official roles and hat collecting and every thing that is bad about RfA duplicated so that more editors can have more access to privileged use of tools than others because of some self perceived notion of need or competence. More trips to ANI and more disputes would be inevitable for an unquantifiable benefit that no one has presented. Leaky Caldron 08:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What about giving crats bigdelete (deleting pages with over 5000 revisions)? It would save people having to flag down a steward. --Rschen7754 20:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My thought was that as long as we're going to have massively under-utilized crats, using this as an excuse to reconfigure the allocation wouldn't be a terrible idea (like giving BAG +bot and Crats +IPBE). But I see that's probably not something that's workable. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the issue is now. So renames will be handled by stewards. The crats have a primary role, and that is to decide community consensus re: flipping bits; that has not changed. And that is the primary difference between an admin and a crat, no? So we'll have less to do as crats now, good. That's more time for admin work, or dare I say it, editing? . -- Avi (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think that now is a good time to reconsider the distribution of tools. I do know that a great many users would like and could be trusted with the editing tools, and have no interest in the blocking and reviewing of deleted contribs. Again, I don't care if it is a new "moderator" bit for just the editor tools, or moving some to crats (which would mean a lot of RfBs, I'm aware). I'm just saying that the difference between Crats and Admins has never been so small, so a realignment or adding of a new tool set bit might be a good idea about now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing tools are given to all users, including IPs. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you understand what I'm saying, the delete tools for CSD, AfD deletions and merging, which are editing tools. There is arguably some merit to giving just those tools to trusted editors who go through some type of RfX process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a complete process for determining trust - RfA. Long may it continue - at least until it isn't granted on a life-term basis. No difference in my book between trust needed for extended editing tools and trust to exercise use of blocking rights. It all amounts to maturity and judgement. Indeed, some might say that more trust is needed for article management which can be less visible than, say, blocking someone. Leaky Caldron 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, from the perspective that bureaucrats have historically been drawn from the pool of admins, the line between them is thin, but the bureaucrat role itself is clearly separate from that of administrator (managing permissions of users based on community-approved processes, including what bots they can run, and for what purpose). Keeping the roles distinct helps avoid conflicts of interest on the part of the bureaucrats. I realize this is actually tangential to your general proposal of looking at changing how user permissions are bundled and granted, but I think your statement is clouding the discussion. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Question What is now, and what would be, the position of a user name that is an obscenity or other unacceptable term in one language, but perfectly acceptable in another? (Can't think of an example for the moment...) I mean the sort of thing that DQ's bot and patrollers load up at UAA. If a name is acceptable, say, on frwiki, but not here on enwiki, how can it be blocked for name change? Peridon (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have to file a request on Meta to be changed, instead of locally on en.wiki, per your example. We have had SUL for 5 years; the fact that it's being finalised doesn't change username policy. WilliamH (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So it will still be blockable in the one language, but usable everywhere else? But to edit in the one, it would have to be changed for everywhere? Peridon (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Correct. 2. Correct. If it were to be changed now, then per your example, an en.wiki bureaucrat would rename it, breaking the SUL, and effectively creating a second account. Following finalisation, they would either have to be renamed by stewards on Meta, thus changing it for everywhere as you say, or they would have to create a second account with a different name for use on that project. The end result is the same regardless of SUL finalisation: change your name, or have more than one account. WilliamH (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

However, I think real names should always be OK. If your name is "Chew Kok," you should probably go through OTRS to verify your identity, but after that it should be fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's always obvious that RfA's with a less than 70% result will fail and an RfB with a less than 80% result will fail too. WOuld the 'crats be opposed to having a bot make these kinds of closes?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A 'crat can close failed RfA/Bs with a rationale to assist the candidate in any future application. Can't see a BOT doing that. Leaky Caldron 14:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• That is never going to happen. For a start, I remember reading about one RfA which passed under that margin because most of the earlier voters thought he was a sockpuppet.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was just a thought.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's a good idea, but I think setting the cut-off at 70% is too high. If the tally at 7 days is, say, 50%, I can see automation of the closure and removal from the RfA page being very useful.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a good idea at all. Why depersonalise one of the most important interactions an editor can have? Leaky Caldron 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would the removal of close RfA's from the main page be useful?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removing RfAs from the main page for any reason other than because they are closed is a bad idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• That was the suggestion - it should not be too hard for a bot to check if a transcluded RfA page has been closed, and then remove it.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are many problems with how RFA works, but RFAs having to be closed by humans is not one of them. I can't see one single benefit to this proposal. What problem would this solve?--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem of the extra workload for crats from the SUL finalisation of course! ;-) Thehelpfulone 14:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• It wasn't a proposal. It was merely a thought.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a single benefit to this thought, then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The benefit is obvious. However, I agree that the personal note from the closing bureaucrat is important, so see that "cost" as materially exceeding the benefit.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The benefit would be obvious if we had 50 RFAs a month. Right now we have 50 a year. It looks like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the idea, for the reasons provided first by Leaky, but I don't think we should be critical of Cyber for suggesting it. We don't want to create an atmosphere where people are afraid to pipe up with suggestions because they fear being ridiculed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't really see anyone being critical of Cyber, just critical of the idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You are right. I guess I just wanted to say that we should be careful not to criticize the idea in a way that discourages future suggestions. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• To answer the question directly, yes, I think on the whole the bureaucrats would be opposed to an RfA closure bot. It isn't an area that we need assistance with, and to drag out an oft-used comment, the percentage thresholds are guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. We retain the human element to make sure that consensus is gauged and that RfA doesn't become a straight vote (though it often appears to be), and using a black-and-white numerical threshold removes that human element. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is not "always obvious" whether an RfA will pass or fail at a certain threshold. Or, for example, what if we wish to extend the RfA? Or hold a 'crat chat? So I am opposed to an RfA-closing bot. At any rate, closing RfAs has not overwhelmed us in many, many years. Maxim_(talk) 23:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are so few RFA's, this is more of a technical solution looking for a problem that's not all that apparent. Plus, RFA is truly a judgement situation - and some candidates really want the feedback. No harsh words intended to cyber, BTW (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I figured as much, but I thought I'd bring it up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Have the 'crats indicated (by word or deed) that they feel overwhelmed by the current load of RfA/RfB closures, or that their other responsibilities aren't being fulfilled due to the handling time associated with the closure of unsuccessful RfAs/RfBs? I know that there are a few editors who get horribly twitchy when any RfA stays open an hour or two past its official closure time, and a few others whose sense of propriety is offended when any obviously-failing RfA is allowed to run out its full duration, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to feed their neuroses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• An interesting idea, but certainly a solution looking for a problem. 12 hours can be a frustrating eternity for a candidate waiting for an obvious closure, especially a successful one , but technically it's not an issue. Any positive changes to the RfA system would probably require more intervention from the crats rather than less. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-May/000233.html for more details. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We're relevant for a few more months! (in all seriousness, thanks for the heads up) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

sigh .. well by Aug. we'll probably be gearing up for the Arb election - but yes, thanks for the info Matt. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A valid point, though one would expect that there will always be some sort of reason to delay the finalization. Still, I think I'll try Echo's handy-dandy pinging capabilities to grab jdforrester's attention. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

@EVula: I hope there will be minimal interference for that, given the way that the ArbCom election works. Also, there's a difference between a cross-wiki vote involving tens of thousands of users, and a vote for ArbCom here that doesn't, even at its peak. [I corrected your link, BTW.] Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving on from one broken deployment to another doesn't seem like a strategy designed to fix anything. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

When renaming a user as part of the RTV process, is it preferable to supress from public view the summary of the revision that moved the page from the former username to the vanished one, and/or the move log of the former username? That becomes the only "link" that can be easily used and I could understand the logic behind suppressing it from public view, but I'm unsure if it is part of the procedure, so I won't touch it for the time being. Thanks for clarifying. Originally asked to MBisanz directly but he suggested input from other 'crats as to the exact procedure. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've always made that decision at the time of the RTV. In general, I don't suppress/revdel those links as I don't think they are "scrapeable" (please correct me if I am wrong) and so cannot serve to link the two identities using search engines. If one of the IDs is an easily identifiable real name or there are other privacy concerns, I will more strongly consider hiding the links as well. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I understand that the concern is more about off-wiki "traceability" than on-wiki linking of the former account and vanished username. However, I've no clue if edit summaries and move log entries are picked up externally. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, they are not. I have never seen one picked up in my time. MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I should add, the way they are usually picked up externally is when Google doesn't update its cache and sends people to deleted pages, where they see the pink box with the move log entry or deletion summary. That's the usual context for requests to suppress a log entry and should be accompanied by a request to Google to update their cache via this link. MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the "Remove bot flag from inactive bots" section of WP:VPR, since if it should pass, it will occasionally require a few additional button clicks for bureaucrats. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

JamieS93 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hey guys! It's been a long, long time since I've edited on here much, but a while ago I was an administrator, and a pretty active one. I technically haven't been inactive for more than three years, so it's my understanding that I can still request the administrative tools back without RfA procedure. I may become an infrequent editor once again, and it would be handy to delete spam and such if I encounter it. Thank you in advance. JamieS93 00:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There's the name of a friendly admin that I remember well! Welcome back. :-) Thehelpfulone 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, some things don't change! I guess it's not a completely new world around here, filled with unfamiliar people. Lol. Good to see you around THO. :) JamieS93 00:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! The new rule is that you have to wait 24 hours from the post to get the tools back, so the crats will probably do it tomorrow. --Rschen7754 01:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamieS93. Like Rschen7754 said, there is a twenty-four hour waiting period. It may or may not be worth it to read WP:UPDATE since some things have changed, but you haven't been gone entirely too long. Check back around 00:04 25 May 2013 (UTC) and you'll have your tools back. For 'crats: JamieS93 was desysopped July 12, 2012 for inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks R and Moe. I'm in no hurry. :) JamieS93 02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Pakaran 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it! Thank you. =) JamieS93 05:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be traveling over the long weekend and not as responsive as usual. If some other crats wanted to help Dweller and WJB with renames, that would be grand. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll need at least one more closer, and two would be nice. This may run until June 17, though the proposer has proposed ending it sooner: see User_talk:Theopolisme#Closing PC/2 RfC. (This may or may not be relevant to RfA.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I received admin privileges under the username User:Richardshusr, subsequently renamed to User:Pseudo-Richard. In January 2010, I gave up the admin bit at the request of User:Moonriddengirl and other admins due to evidence of serial copyright violations. I have remained active on Wikipedia since then under the username User:Pseudo-Richard. I have not been blocked for any reason since then. Since then, there was one instance of copyright violation that I know of which has been fixed. Due to the volume of edits since January 2010, I have no easy way to prove that there have been no other copyright violations. I can offer the evidence that CorenBot has not flagged any of my edits since that date nor has there been any other allegation of copyright violation logged onto my Talk Page. At this point, I would like to request the admin bit back primarily because I fear that, if I let the adminship lapse too long, I will be asked to go through the RFA process again. So... I figured I'd try this path first. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richard. There is no lapse which you should have feared since you remained active. The only time it would require you a new RFA is for inactivity (no edits and no logs) of over three years. The only thing that could bar you from being resysopped is the circumstances surrounding it, which a bureaucrat will use their discretion with. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Related thread: User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Archives/2010#Copyright concerns and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive591#Concerns_with_copyright.2C_admin_user --Rschen7754 01:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• This looks like you requested the bit removed due to a consensus of users saying you should resign the bit, and you chose to surrender it to make any Arb other action unnecessary. A noble choice that I respect, but still a textbook example of "under a cloud". Of course, I'm not a Bureaucrat and the decision isn't mine to make. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Bureaucrat note: My opinion on the matter—as always, subject to change based on the validity, strength, and persuasiveness of opposing arguments—is that while Richard did not actually resign the tools to escape immediate sanction, he did do so as a result of a significant concern raised about his editing and his (at the time) ability or willingness to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As such, I believe Richard is not eligible for the standard return of permissions, and should resubmit an RfA. I also believe that Richard will be well-suited to post the comments left to him about the maturity and graciousness of his decision by those who had raised the original issue at any future RfA. -- Avi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• My primary concern would be going through the RfA. The CCI is still open on him, but that's through no fault of his own; there's no manpower to tackle it. If he tried going through, it would probably be torpedoed just for that. That being said, the issues that led to the desysop were fairly clearly under a cloud, so "to avoid RfA" may be the only excuse to grant back the tools this way, and that's not exactly a road we should start going down. Wizardman 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that is harsh commentary on the decision making wisdom of the community. Unfortunately, you may have initiated a self fullfilling professy by asserting that an open CCI is a reason to torpedo a RfA. Further, you have asserted that an RfA can be torpedoed, which is easily taken to mean that a single issue, or even a single torpedoer, can have defacto veto power.
  To paraphrase User:Tbsdy_lives 11:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC), that Richard voluntarily and graciously resigned his adminship when criticised, while admitting mistake and taking steps to fix the problems, speaks volumes to his character. He should be encouraged make his case at RfA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I of course hope my above scenario isn't the case since he has made strides to fix the issues, but this exact same scenario took place at an RfA three five months ago, so it's not hypothetical at all. Wizardman 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In all fairness, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5 showed that the community can be harsh with open CCI cases. I'm open minded, but it is no secret that some editors think that any CCI case, open or closed, is problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think in such a case, he should be still run an RfA, but crats should give less weight to arguments that refer to the CCI and do not address why it is a continuing concern other than the fact that it is still open. For example, if the support percentage is 65-70% and a sizeable chunk of the opposers are just that, then crats could close the RfA as successful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis is correct that the community can be harsh with open CCI cases (and I would add that they can also be harsh with closed CCI cases, as I learned when I nominated someone for RfA who had some.) But I have to concur with the 'crats who've commented so far that a (new) successful RfA is needed for a resysop given the circumstances of the desysop. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A new RfA seems to be the best option Mlpearc (powwow) 03:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with what has already been said about a new RFA being the best course forward. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK... thank you. I asked the question and got an answer. So I will assume that the answer is "No" and that a new RfA is required. Thank you again. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard, and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was out of town on holiday so didn't see this right away. I agree with the comments made by Avi and others indicating that a new RfA would be the best course. Good luck! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please remove the bot flag from Special:UserRights/Δbot, the owner is banned and the bot is blocked and the flag now serves no purpose (Please note this is in an attempt to clear out the list of currently flagged bots. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Please also remove the bot flag from Special:UserRights/VsBot, another long blocked bot my notice to bot op ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also you can take the flags from User:ArticleAlertbot and User:Legobot III which were both operated by me and long inactive. Legoktm (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also User:Rschen7754bot as it has largely been replaced by EdwardsBot. --Rschen7754 05:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done Flags removed from ArticleAlertbot, Legobot III, and Rschen7754bot. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please also remove the following flags from more inactive blocked bots, Special:UserRights/AlexNewArtBot, Special:UserRights/CSDWarnBot, Special:UserRights/KuduBot, Special:UserRights/Lightbot, Special:UserRights/PALZ9000, Special:UserRights/SlakrBot, Special:UserRights/Taxobot, Special:UserRights/Taxobot_7 and Special:UserRights/Zorglbot. Cheers! ·addshore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Also, a special shout-out to Slakr for SlakrBot's block log.[4] Bravo. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Like ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe also some of the bots under Special:Search/interwiki prefix:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval? There are a lot of speedily-approved ones in there that are now redundant due to Wikidata, and were never approved for any other tasks. FaleBot (talk · contribs), for instance, hasn't edited since 3 days after its BRFA. Seems a bit misleading to say "retains the approval of the community" on their userpages. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I will try and take a look :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 09:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I requested removal of the bit last month because of conflicting with school. I'm taking some time off from school however because of personal reasons, and some of my now free time I could dedicate to killing some administrative backlogs and content writing. I am more than happy to wait 24 hours. Thanks Secret ^account 18:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No problems for me, Secret has always been an admin I would trust. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For the curious: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret 3. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 28#Desysop 2. Looks good to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no concerns. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wizardman 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Secret ^account 20:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Meno25 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hi. I would like to be reinstated as a sysop. I am a former admin in good standing (resigned without controversy). I was promoted in April 2207 and gave away the sysop bit voluentarily in February 2011 because I didn't have much time to contribute. Now I have more free time to contribute, so, here I am asking for the admin flag again. I promise to use the admin tools wisely and adhere to all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you in advance. --Meno25 (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• By my count you're not due to pass RFA for another 194 years.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I suspect time travel! ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 13:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• (non-crat) Aside from the unauthorized use of a flux capacitor, I looked around and found nothing of concern. So you know, policy now requires a 24 hour waiting period to insure the community and the Crats have the opportunity to research a bit. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 14:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No use telling him that now; he's already time-travelled ahead to when the 24-hour wait period has passed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the bureaucrats do not have access to the same time-travelling technology (dammit), so we'll still have to wait 24 hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agreeing with EVula that it looks fine to me. MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done - welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The following can be desysopped as of June 1, 2013 as inactive:

• CYD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Pcb21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Theresa knott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Tra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Ugen64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Ww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Thanks. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know this editor was a bureaucrat until I started to review my options in regard to the latest edit.  For reference, here is a recent diff of the talk page.  The following diffs show that this editor's attitude toward the candidate is less than impartial, or show attempts to deflect the flow of discussion away from the topic at hand, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].  There is an edit moved to the talk page from the Project Page with similar content posted at 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC). 

My discussions with this editor occurred in the "Traditional encyclopedic content" section (although there is also one exchange on the Project Page).  The editor was never able or willing to discuss the topic at hand.  After a few unproductive posts, this edit reveals the editor is looking at our discussion as "play".  If you review to the edit posted at 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC), the post reports that the RFA discussion is "becoming entertaining".  In the context, "play" and "entertain" are not constructive words.  Anything I say to him will be viewed as "play", and the response will be his idea of play.  As shown in the first diff, this has already happened.  I realize that the people here are volunteers.  I, too, am a volunteer.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that first edit, The Rambling Man was calling out what he considered hypocrisy on your part; to be fair, I think that's a fair declaration when someone is criticizing someone else's writing and then has several errors in their own posts. I don't see how you can refer to this edit as him calling the whole discussion as play; are you genuinely not familiar with the phrase "well played"? It's akin to "touché", albeit used sarcastically here due to his disagreement with your and Kiefer.Wolfowitz's positions. TRM is simply frustrated at some rather poor attitudes and is getting his hands a bit dirtier than normal as a result (there's nothing saying that bureaucrats can't jump into the mix at RfA, though I trust TRM enough to know he won't likely close the RfA, so I don't have any concerns about him not being impartial), but considering how silly (and absurdly personal) some of the comments from the opposition are getting, I personally don't see it as a problem (and I don't think him saying that a situation is "becoming entertaining" is some egregious insult; I think you're misinterpreting his statements and taking them way too seriously).
Perhaps everyone should just step back and disengage. EVula // talk // ☯ // 11:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to reply here, but I see that EVula has made all the points that I would have made (and then some), so I'll just note that I agree with his analysis. 28bytes (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys (mainly User:Unscintillating). Anyone fancied letting me know about this discussion? No great shakes, but it would have been nice to know, not that I'd have had much to say about it, EVula has covered it. As my mum says, "politeness costs nothing". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it was fairly clear throughout Mattythewhite's RfA that he was commenting in the discussion in his capacity as an editor, rather than as a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat is as free as anyone else to !vote in an RfA and to comment during the discussion, so long as he or she doesn't then act with his or her bureaucrat hat on during that RfA. (It's the same principle by which I be a party to a dispute that comes before ArbCom, but then I couldn't act as an arbitrator in that dispute.)

However, I think we can all agree that the snark and bickering on that RfA's talkpage got completely out of hand, and I hope we don't this sort of thing again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We probably will until some form of reform or policing of the system is finally introduced. But that would either need a top-down from the WMF (which is unlikely) or an RfC that is heavily subscribed from the commnuity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this proposal, which really represents a "least common denominator" situation: A bureaucrat has authority to ban a given editor from commenting further on a given RfA or its talkpage if (1) the bureaucrat reasonably believes that the editor's contributions have become disruptive or distracting, and (2) the editor has already made ten or more comments on that RfA? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They can use discretion to discount votes and probably even to strike them if they are egregiously inappropriate, but the power to ban probably falls outside the scope of a bureaucrat. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Better to use non-bureaucrat clerks (whether the clerks are formal or not), than to have the bureaucrats muddy their role by both guiding consensus negotiating behaviour, policing undefined rules, and judging. Past attempts to remove/prevent unsavory stuff have led into prolonged discussion, and it is better that bureaucrats are not committed to engaging in these discussions during a RfA. Any admin may block an editor who is disrupting, and then it goes to ANI, away from the RfA page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Every time any admin tries to clerk an RfA, it explodes into controversy and can easily turn bad for the candidate. It goes to ANI, drama happens, that brings over more people from ANI to add more pointed votes at RfA, rinse, repeat. Striking or removing sock comments isn't a problem, but other than that, policy is unclear and failing us miserably. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerking needs to be with great care, probably more care than is usually associated with past attempts. Overly strong clerking, even from a bureaucrat has been unwelomed. See here. More lately, MBisanz had been doing a a very reasonable job, but his momentum seemed to break following a slight overstep, see here. I think it might be safer for a well respected non-bureaucrat to do some tentative clerking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I never misused my admin or my 'crat tools in this RFA, I deliberately supported Matty because I think he's an excellent and long-standing contributor (few and far between) who is capable of making a net gain to the project. I wasn't specifically "clerking" the RFA, but making personal reactions to some of the nonsense that I saw there. I was never going to be anything but an "editor" in this RFA which EVula has already noted, I voted strong support first up of any !voters. The fact that Unscintillating doesn't understand the nuances of British English and one of KW's stick with which to beat Matty was similar (i.e. the appalling "review" of the lead of Matty's FA), and the ongoing saga with KW demonstrates that we should all pick and choose our language more clearly and unambiguously, particularly in inflammatory situations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, people hold Bureaucrats to the highest standard of Wikipedians, higher than Arbs or Admin, but it is more complex than that. To many editors, Crats are the final word of good sense and calm judgement here, and it has nothing to do with using the bit in any way. This is why the standard to get cratship is so high and typically only obtainable by individuals who have shown they can be among the most calm and neutral in discussion. While you didn't break any policy by your participation, you fell short of what people expect in a Bureaucrat, ie: perfectly neutral in all ways. Just as people expect admin to be held to a higher standard even when they aren't using the bit, the expectations for Crats is higher in everything they do. When you fall short of that, some people will be disappointed and believe you have failed the bit, failed Wikipedia. This is inescapable. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that doesn't change the perception that people have about Bureaucrats: "Those are the guys that rise above the petty arguments and politics, and offer neutral input on all things." Most editors will give your opinions more weight in any discussion, but at the price of higher expectations in all things, regardless of how policy defines your role. Nothing you can say here will change that perception. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then we should start the move to remove my 'crat bit. I'd rather allow myself to have (and post) honest opinions when things are going south. If having the 'crat bit means I can't, and if the community think I've "disappointed" them and "failed the bit, failed Wikipedia", then I'd be a charlatan if I was to remain as a 'crat. Obviously I'd prefer otherwise, but if that's what you and the community believe, I've always remained open to recall and in this situation, nothing has changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. Remembering that people may have slightly unrealistic expectations at times is helpful. I don't think you have to sacrifice having opinions, just be more sensitive to the fact that people will take you more seriously than they would a Rollbacker or Admin, by virtue of the bit. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that. The real power of the Crat bit isn't the tools, it is the faith that the average user puts in your words, in spite of your own desires and in spite of policy clearly stating otherwise. No matter how much we claim there are no ranks here and act accordingly, people will perceive them. It is human nature to seek structure, even where it doesn't exist. Even with the admin bit, I have to phrase things differently than I did before. A Crat, much more so. Arbs have their own somewhat similar limitations. From my perspective, bits are more burden than power, and should be. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware that people have higher (aka unrealistic) expectations. I reiterate, if there's a genuine support for the fact I've "disappointed" and "failed the bit, failed Wikipedia", I'm open for recall, both as a 'crat and an admin. I've had a notice on my talk page for a while to indicate this. I meant it when I said it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to consider such a step. My friendly advice would simply be that if you find yourself posting a couple of dozen times to the same discussion (whether it's an RfA or an RfA talkpage or something else), it may be time to consider whether you've contributed all you have to say to that particular discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I'd consider it is because of comments such as "failed the bit, failed Wikipedia". Otherwise, I'll carry on carrying on (and will consider your kind advice Brad, thanks). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason why bureaucrats have to be silent vote-counting machines; it is beyond unrealistic to expect bureaucrats to adhere to that standard. Wikipedians expect neutrality from bureaucrats, but we also expect them to step in and intervene in a situation when they deem necessary. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we're done here. --Dweller (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We need closers for the big RfC on Pending Changes Level 2. Discussion is welcome at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013#Looking for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the admin bit from my account - I've become frustrated with Wikipedia for various reasons and probably won't be around for a while, so it seems better for all parties involved to remove my admin bit -- Ferkelparade π 23:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy your time away, and feel free to drop back by here if you decide to pick up the mop again. 28bytes (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

m:SRP#Magister Mathematicae. The stewards have reminded him that they won't desysop when there are local users who can do so, so I imagine he'll be around here in a bit, but, just in case he isn't, I thought I'd leave this here. A shame to see any veteran admin go. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we have not done so. I have chosen my words carefully. Stewards can and will desysop per the local policies that expressly allow us to, I don't know what you're trying to argue both here and there, but it's factually incorrect. I merely stated, and stand by, my statement saying that 'crats are more suited to the job, given no other userrights apply, the circumstances of his resignation and the fact that we'll have to be deferring, imo, the meta -sysop request anyway. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Snowolf. I'm sorry, I misread the relevant paragraph of GRP. There's so many cases that stewards won't act in the stead of local users that I forgot this is a rare exception. My bad. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, it happens, no worries. :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Addshore. --Rschen7754 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The usurpations page is highly backlogged. It needs to be addressed. Surfer43 (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I put some time into catching the page up. Thanks for the headsup. Pakaran 10:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

As I will not be participating in this project for the foreseeable future, please remove the administrator rights from my account. Best of luck to everyone! Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for all you've done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to link to 28 and WJB ... but this is easier, faster, and better. There's a discussion at WT:RFA where the crat position has been mentioned in this thread. (at the moment it's toward the bottom of the thread.) Personally I'd be interested in any thoughts you guys folks may have. Do we have any female crats? — Ched :  ?  02:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the latter question, this thread may be of interest. 28bytes (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Would a bureaucrat please reply at WP:CHU/Simple#Neo. → The One? The user will not accept that the presence of a SUL account in his target name is an obstacle to a simple rename on en:wp. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have replied. WJBscribe (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The following can be desysopped as of July 1 as inactive:

• Leonard^Bloom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Luna Santin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• SorryGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done, may I prevail upon you to update the relevant lists of former admins? WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I've been away recently but I updated former. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish to resign my admin status please - I finally no longer wish to be part of what is becoming an increasingly tainted category of users. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can't we hold off on this please? Seems to be a heat of the moment thing and I want to talk to him on his talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly, withdraw. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto on the request to hold off for now. We shouldn't lose an admin over this kerfuffle at WP:AN. Bencherlite^Talk 10:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• It's really up to Boing but he probably won't even be watching this page. It's a shame though, because if all the untainted admins were to retire, then we would be left only with the tainted ones and the anti-admin brigade would have a field day. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That sounds like the email I just sent him. I'm just asking the Crats to delay 24 hours, same as when we rebit someone. It is Boing's decision and I will respect it regardless, but I'm hoping he will reconsider after a few hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo this concern. a13ean (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for the email, Dennis - I've logged back in just to add a few words here in response. As I said in my reply, "The core problem is that the Wikipedia power structure is fundamentally flawed, and while neither WMF nor Arbcom will do anything about it (the latter repeatedly refuses to do anything about blatantly-unsuitable admins), we'll just keep on repeating the same fights over and over again - and I'm not prepared to do that any more". And 24 hours isn't going to change that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A shame to see you give up the mop. But IMH(and non-crat)O the circumstances do not count as cloud-worthy for the purposes of resysopping if you so feel in due course. Bencherlite^Talk 12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Like you, I can't how any Crat would see any cloud here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The only cloud is that we're going to be left with fewer and fewer front-line admins who bravely go about their work without a Kevlar™ vest - unless of course RfA picks up, and in the light of the current environment, I can't see that happening any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done, reluctantly. No cloud whatsoever, and I'll be happy to resysop when and if Boing ever requests it. 28bytes (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Boing puts it well and is spot on. Sad to lose him. The wiki power structure gets worse and worse and AC is gutless to do anything about it. PumpkinSky talk 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree but that's what we get when we have a system that allows abusive admins to keep the tools and make it impossible to remove them. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yepper. We need a quick, efficient way to get rid of the all too common incompetent abusive admins. PumpkinSky talk 16:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with a consensus vote on a De-RFA or somwhere. If the community can vote on someone having the tools they can vote to remove them too. Subject to approval by a beauracrat of course. Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• As one needs to address admin gaining and losing tools systemically, I'm working on ideas/processes here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• As much as I hate to say it, we really do need some kind of system for removing adminship without going through ArbCom. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, far too much drama to get, too hard to remove—and no culture of having a break, as a consequence. And too little emphasis on smoothing troubled waters, counselling long-standing editors who are arguing with each other (it's inevitable, but needs cautions and mediation by admins when it gets out of hand). Too many gun-toting sheriffs, which might be fine for vandals and persistent sociopaths, but in one prominent case has led to the loss of three fine editors over the past few months. It's all thoroughly unhealthy, and we see the results here. The German WP does it much much better. Could we learn from their 2009 reform? Tony (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember that. I'd support it. At this point en wiki's processes are almost nonfunctional and we've got to try something. PumpkinSky talk 10:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to an API update, cratstats has ceased to function since June 23. This bug has now been fixed and cratstats now updates instantaneously when something changes.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Cratstats were last updated a couple of years ago. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Catching that page up now looks a little too ominous. Maybe we could have some annual (as opposed to monthly) stats instead though? WJBscribe (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's a nightmare. At various times we talked about tasking a bot to update it, but I think the Wikimarkup defeated the best intentions. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that page should be kept forever as a monument to the horrors of wikimarkup! WJBscribe (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower is talking about the {{Cratstats}} template transcluded at the top of this page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Silly of me. And silly of us for having two, similarly named features. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why I love Wikipedia. Thanks Kingpin13. :D—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations is again backlogged after being cleaned up 2 weeks ago. Surfer (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We'll get to it as soon we can. Please be patient - especially as you have already been renamed once in the last month. Looking at your reason for renaming - you should be able to create a global account by going to Special:MergeAccount and following the instructions there. For the wikis where there are already accounts, you will need to wait for SUL finalisation or usurp those accounts locally. Are you sure you want to be renamed back? WJBscribe (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I know it’s slightly off-topical (so my apologies for that in advance), but could somebody formally close the infamous AN discussion? It is not a routine noticeboard quarrel. IMHO a great amount of trust in a person who will sign the closing statement, especially a popular support demonstrated not a long time ago, will forestall possible disputes about legitimacy of the resolution. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. I'm not going to remove it, but I suggest you do.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are proposals both here and at the village pump to significantly expand the abilities and functions of Bureaucrats regarding Community de-adminship. Could members of the bureaucrat usergroup speak out in support or opposition to the core concept of adding to their abilities regarding administrator de-adminship in any way whatsoever? Since the proposals are not concrete, I have added a discussion section for bureaucrats and below it, a discussion section for non-bureaucrats. If there is no interest among the bureaucrat usergroup in having their userrights expanded in this way, it moots all such proposals. NOTE: I request that only bureaucrats post here, except for the non-bureaucrat section at the bottom. Thanks to all concerned. Jusdafax 22:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the bureaucrat usergroup have, in theory, new abilities concerning Community de-adminship added to it?

Support

Oppose

Bureaucrat discussion

• As a 'crat, I don't want to seem ungrateful that you've solicited our input on the expansion of the 'crat role, but my experience has been that the community as a whole (or in the case of the rename function, the WMF) gets to decide the scope of the role. Obviously I support the current village pump proposal, as I'm the one who proposed it, but if the community doesn't want to see an expanded role for bureaucrats in a community desysopping process, that's fine too. The ability of bureaucrats to honor self-desysop requests is a relatively new addition to the role of bureaucrat, and I think the relatively smooth implementation of that community-based policy change illustrates that the 'crat corps as a whole is willing to step up to whatever (reasonable) responsibilities the community grants it. 28bytes (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-bureaucrat discussion

• Please, non-bureaucrats, comments should be placed below this line, thanks.

• Does anyone still seriously believe that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"? Taroaldo ✉ 22:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

How many times are we going to have this poll this year? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wiki is totally dysfunctional, far worse than before. That's why this is needed. Hopefully crats will step up to the plate, because arbcom sure isn't. PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• These groups are all filled from the same general candidate pool. How will adding one more layer of the same kind of bureaucracy make it any less dysfunctional? Taroaldo ✉ 23:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• By providing a more streamlined process because RFC/arbcom is too convoluted. And since AC has lost all interest in maintaining admin standards of conduct, we need a group that hopefully will do that job. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Desysop_.2F_reconfirmation_RfA_proposal. PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• This question is pointless. If a CDA process ever gains consensus support, it will quite naturally fall to bureaucrats or stewards to action the result. Resolute 23:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree and have created the poll because I consider the question and poll crucial to the proposals regarding Community de-adminship. 2010's failed Cda proposal never properly asked the 'crats if they would accept such a role. Any proposal that builds in a major role for 'crats must begin with their knowledge, understanding, and a consensus of approval of the theory of expanding their role in this regard at all, especially since they were not elected with such proposed function(s) in mind. No consensus among 'crats on this topic means Cda proposals can save a lot of time by seeking other methods. Jusdafax 23:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Although Wikipieda Bureaucrats have, in the past, pointed out that they did not receive consensus support for any additional tasks beyond their current scope, this doesn't mean the role cannot be expanded further. It just means that any proposal will also have to accommodate a procedure for the Bureaucrats to receive this consensus support, and for appropriate editors willing to take on the new role to be selected by the community. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
      • An important point; thanks for raising it. I have forwarded it to the village pump discussion. Jusdafax 01:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll have whatever Boing is having. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly  Done. Sorry to lose you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't interpret this as a resignation request until I saw EVula's action on my watchlist. I am finding it impossible to come up with anything civil to say. Nothing against EVula, of course, but goddamn it to hell.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

See my post in Boing's request. PumpkinSky talk 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm deeply, deeply tempted to jump on the desysop bandwagon as well. "ArbCom repeatedly refuses to do anything about blatantly-unsuitable admins" — check. And cowboys such as Sandstein and Kww place blocks that they obviously know are highly controversial, without advising with anybody, without warning the user, and throw primadonna fits if somebody ventures to unblock without first collecting a consensus on ANI. ("Please do not ever do that to a block I have placed again.") Yes, I know policy encourages this notion that the blocking admin owns the block. It shouldn't, that's all. It means that any blocked user, however unreasonably blocked, is supposed to sit and wait for all the timezones to first have their say in a "discussion". Trying to undo a 24-hour block on those conditions is meaningless. Just now, Sandstein's block of Saedon feels like the last straw for me. If this "corps" isn't cleaned up, and the ArbCom doesn't clean up their act, you may end up seeing all the reasonable admins leave in disgust. (Remember Floquenbeam? He didn't even throw in the bit, he just left.) Then Sandstein can block the rest of the community and there will be no more trouble, ever. (This is not a request for people to ask me to stay. Don't, that's all. Just don't. I'm going to think about it by myself.) Bishonen | talk 18:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

I'm sorry that you see 3 months for someone's sixth block for personal attacks as somehow being an unreasonable block, but yes, I do see unilaterally overriding blocks as more of a problem than placing such a block. If admins would get out of the habit of unblocking chronically disruptive editors, the remaining editors would tend to get more done. To undo a block needs a consensus that the block was improper, not these messy, ugly dramafests at AN and ANI that wind up keeping disruptive editors around for years longer than we need to endure them.—Kww(talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a large online library for anyone to access, not a totalitarian regime like country, the entire community is like Syria Prabash.Akmeemana 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's one and the same. Theopolisme (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom has become totally ineffective; not just re bad admins, but in total. They have turned down or are about to turn down 6 cases in a row--cases within their remit and with plenty of evidence. I'm not even sure we should keep them around, at least not this year. These guys find excuses not to do their job. It takes countless victims and years and years of pointless RFCs and AC cases to get rid of just one bad admin. It's insane. The system is totally ineffective and in serious need of rebuilding from the ground up. It's 1859 and both the abolitionists and Confederates are about to riot. And don't forget, I'm one of the few people that have seen AC from inside and out. PumpkinSky talk 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what arbcom can do about admins like Coren, Kww, Sandstein and Fram. Those admins should have their ability to block anyone but blatant vandals and socks revoked. None has the social sense for anything more nuanced. (Though I think Fram got the last one right. Sorry!). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What we need is a system that can allow the general community to determine if adminship should be revoked. That way, instead of being left with only the ability to vent angrily about it, users could actually do something if they felt an admin needed to be de-sysopped. Adminship has been become a big deal to obtain and that is partly because it is so hard to take away. I believe (and it's only my opinion) that if you make adminship easier to remove, RfA will improve. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Easier for some, maybe. Leaky Caldron 19:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way: If the community is charged with granting adminship, should not the community be charged with taking it away? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

[deep, sonorous voice] This new notification evocation system seems to work; My email pinged Me out of a sound slumber. It troubles Me to read how, in My absence, My children have strayed so far from the Path that I have repeatedly revealed to them. But I am a lazy, if judgmental, God, so I do not plan to do anything about it. Yet.

Don't ask for a desysop, User:Bishonen. There are other ways to differentiate yourself from the gaggle of Hall Monitors around here. For example, Scottywong has had a hardon for punishing Eric for quite a while, so his disingenuous claim that he has increased Eric's block to indefinite "at his request" was really a calculated dick move, and you could revert to the 1 month duration until Eric returns and clarifies if he still wants it. If you request a desysop, you wouldn't be able to do Good Works like that.

Now, everyone start acting like grownups again, or I shall visit all of you with a plague of toads like you've never seen. I now return to My well-deserved Rest. I trust that a clear warning that "We are not amused" is sufficient.--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem: who would we trust to desysop bad admins? Many don't trust arbcom to do so, many don't trust the community to do so, and I don't think anyone would agree on making that an admin or crat responsibility. It's easy to say desysops need to be easier. I've said that for over 5 years and ran on that platform back when I was an arb. It's much tougher to figure out the users and the method. Wizardman 19:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A reconfirmation RFA every year or two, you don't pass, you lose the bit. And an Admin Competency Board run by crats, respected admins, and respected non members.PumpkinSky talk 19:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hell no to the first one; the good admins would be the ones not re-running so we'd just be left with trouble. The second one is an interesting thought though. Wizardman 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alternately, we could require a reconfirmation RfA for an admin if a requisite number of users expressed a desire than the admin be desysopped. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing for sure ladies and germs, if we do nothing, nothing will change. We need to try something because a wiki civil war is about to break out, hell, the shots at Fort Sumter have already been fired. PumpkinSky talk 19:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Civil War with like at the most 1% (if that) that can possibly be affected by it. Let's not cause unneeded drama with comments like that. Secret ^account 19:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, what I said is true. At it's not just admins that would be affected, so 1% is a gross underestimate. PumpkinSky talk 19:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked. We have a problem and things are getting ugly. We need to find a solution. However, if we propose multiple solutions at one time, none is likely to get consensus. Therefore, we need to find the solution most likely to be supported and present it to the community. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Things are getting ugly because we allow the existence of vested editors who flout the same policies and guidelines that routinely end in indef blocks for others. In this specific case, we've seen a block on Eric/Malleus stick for far longer than most would have expected. That suggests to me that Eric's enablers are losing support to people who are just tired of the drama he creates. Wiki civil war? Hardly. 99.99% of Wikipedia continues on, oblivious to this small little dust up. And most of that 99.99% manages to contribute content without the attitude problems. Nobody is irreplaceable. To those that leave as a result of this, they will be thanked for their contributions, but Wikipedia will continue on with hardly a blip. Resolute 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There's more than just a bit of truth in that. I took a 2-month Wikibreak earlier this year. I didn't announce it, and nobody noticed I was gone. The depressing thing is that when I came back, I just found the same old, same old. And would you believe it - Malleus still in the thick of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see merit to both sides, and I do firmly believe the abusive admin situation is worse than before and we really need to do something about it.PumpkinSky talk 20:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to go down that route, we need to do something about abusive people, not just admins. And we need to make very certain that we don't define "abusive admin" as one who blocks someone with a lot of friends. Resolute 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• In this thread, some administrators have been identified as acting in a suboptimal way. How many of them have had a request for arbitration brought? Everytime Arbcom even hints it's thinking about doing something without a direct request from the community, we're pummeled with brickbats (and sometimes justifiably). So...gather your evidence and show up at our door. We can't yank admins out of the admin community without someone making a formal request. Just saying. Risker (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  • UH, anymore when we do that AC finds some excuse not to take a case. You know perfectly well cases have been brought this year that would before have easily been accepted. Throw in that this year AC is wildly inconsistent and you have the total mess we're in now. PumpkinSky talk 22:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  If I may come out of my isolation for a moment... instead of trying to recreate some profound comment I'll simply link to what I wrote during another blowup in December. Pretty much everything, including the article being referenced, applies here too.[14] The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  I've been variously identified in recent times as a candidate to "have my bits removed". Yet the stain of accusation remains without any genuine approach to Arbcom (or elsewhere) to sort it out, despite even advertising that I'm happy for such procedures to go ahead with one caveat, which is that someone tells me it's happening. Bitch on about "bad" admins, "bad" 'crats, "bad" arbs, but does anyone do anything about this? Not that I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I second the sadness about losing two good administrators, as well as Risker's comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• • UH, anymore when we do that AC finds some excuse not to take a case. You know perfectly well cases have been brought this year that would before have easily been accepted. Throw in that this year AC is wildly inconsistent and you have the total mess we're in now. PumpkinSky talk 22:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• @ Risker Complete respect, I think you know that. But with such diverse views in the 15 or 18 or whatever number of arbs there are - "showing up at your door" is a very hit or miss proposition. When someone says "here is evidence", and Arbcom says ... "yea - we see it, but you forgot to fill out form 1078B (aka RfC/U) and you decline to even LOOK at the evidence or make some sort of statement? Well gee yea .. some sort of RfC might me nice. Talk about feeling like there is no backup? Then someone complains and bitches too loud .. BOOM ... another admin. comes in and blocks? Well gee .. this guy just filed a request and it got dismissed ... do you think he/she is gonna be anxious to try again? There was a day when Roger saw the situation with Betacommand not being resolved ... and proposed a motion to ban him. No request was filed. Just "there is disruption, and the community isn't dealing with it". Now? This Arbcom? Hell, you folks weren't even 3 months in and you posted a "statement" that "some anon complained that Malleus and George may or may not be the same person" .. Really? Are you freakin kidding me? The committee has no problem "suspending" cases ... and yet in the face of clear and obvious "poor use" of tools .. we get a ... well gee he's a nice guy .. no harm no foul. How do you expect admins to respect the committee? An admin. can call someone a jerk or a fool, and yet a "non-admin" dare call someone an asshole .. or arsehole .. IDK ... IDC ... and BOOM ... gone for a month. We've got a few admins that excel at getting rid of an undesirable (by their own "judge jury and executioner" determination) element. They won the popularity contest that is RfA. They don't don't break "technical" rules ... but they seek out and hound people. Be it Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, some poor soul that runs afoul of WP:AE .. and now it looks like Malleus/Eric is next on the list. You wonder why "GOOD" admins leave? Do ya really? Naaa ... I was early on the list of the "it just isn't worth it" folks. Admin abuse? Pfftttt ... yep ... and it goes both ways. Some of us are tired of being abused, and some of us are tired of being associated with those who DO abuse. Meh ... I don't care. Yank my bit - block me - ban me ... I honestly don't care. Whatever. — Ched :  ?  22:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

GO CHED GO!!!! I don't care either. Yank my bit. Oh wait, I gave it up on my own almost three years ago. So ban me.PumpkinSky talk 22:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Risker. Filing a report on an admin at RFAR is a lot of work. Who's going to bother to try with Sandstein or Fram after this wasn't even accepted? When not only a desysop didn't follow, but it wasn't even accepted as a case? Appealing at RFAR in these situations looks like a complete timesink to me. Declined because the also horrendous timesink of an RFC/U hadn't been done first? As Ched says, form 1078B. I sure don't have that kind of time and energy to spare, I've got other uses for it. I wonder if anybody does, when the record is so discouraging. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

Let's review one case, former admin unnamed--call them ABC, but folks can probably figure it out....users complain about ABC for about 2 years. ABC shows up in a few arb cases but arbcom does nothing. A couple more years go by, with countless victims from day one strewn along the way. Finally ABC shows up in another arbcase the bit is finally taken. Total elapsed time: FOUR YEARS, all spent on one user. So many people's time spent on that when it could have been much better spent on content. PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that all sanctions on Wikipedia are supposed to be preventative (and this includes desysoppings); so, if an admin is brought before ArbCom, but shows that he understands he fouled up and promises to change his behaviour (and actually follows through), to remove his bit would just be punitive. Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to go there, but, in that case, you need to show me that there is consensus to codify that approach into policy. You say that ABC got away scot-free; that's not entirely accurate: he was criticised, even harshly, by fellow members of the community and, hopefully, he will learn from this experience. If this happens, that's a very positive outcome. If he fouls up again, he'll have already used up his get out of jail free card and will be sanctioned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

When people do the same stuff for years they're not stopping til their bit is yanked. Your characterization of ABC is wrong. He still thinks he did no wrong. He'd have never stopped with his bit intact. I'm talking a real case here, not hypothetics. Removal was the only prevention and it took 4 years. So yes, he got away scott free for 4 years. And what did the victims get? Diddly squat. Those with erroneous blocks can not get them removed and have to wear the Wiki Scarlett Letter forever. When will AC ever think of the innocent victims? Probably never. PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support the creation of a process by which bad blocks may be expunged from an editor's log. And while "who will think of the innocent victims" may appear a good approach to these problems, it does conflict with the idea that sanctions are merely preventative. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm breaking out of my wikibreak to remind folks that last year a number of community solutions were attempted. WP:RAS was one of them. Worm hosted an RFC on it. Jc37 had an equally interesting proposal. The community wasn't very interested once the options were on the table. I have concluded that at this time, if Arb doesn't do it, it won't get done. I don't want Arb to go maverick nor do I want them to be passive. I understand the limits on Arb as a whole, but we have a genuine leadership vacuum at Wikipedia. The leadership role used to be filled by Jimmy, but those days are long gone. Nature abhors a vacuum, so it will either be filled with new leadership of some kind (formal or by example), or it will begin to devolve into vigilantism and anarchy. It doesn't require much imagination to see which direction we are moving into. It isn't hyperbole to say that if Wikipedia were a country, there would have been a military coup by now, fueled by the cheers of the citizens starving for leadership of any kind. Whether that comes from Arb or somewhere else, it is desperately needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Very astute and valid. The community needs to step up to the plate or the coup will happen. PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to crush your dreams, but nothing even remotely close to a coup d'état can occur on Wikipedia without abuse of tools. Then again, abusing tools in staging a coup would be counter-intuitive to trying to end the abuse, wouldn't it? The most you're going to get is something closer to a walkout than a coup. Anyways, we shouldn't just start deposing admins for mistakes, swiftly without any self-recognition that they were at fault or giving them a second chance based on the good work that they have done. If we treated all the long-time editors like that on a regular basis, editors in this very thread probably wouldn't even be here right now. Don't lose sight over what this discussion started over, and it's certainly not the red herring of a despondent Wikipedia with hoards of administrator abuse; this discussion was about Eric Corbett. Does abuse (or more commonly, mistakes) occur? Yes, but habitual offenders are dealt with. Having a different opinion on what the outcome should have been does not equate to abuse. I'll go ahead and say something that probably should have been said to begin with: Eric should stop acting like a dick and he wouldn't attract the attention he gets. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes it can happen. And as for "habitual offenders are dealt with". Oh really? Shall I start a long list of those that haven't? And how ridiculously long does it take? PumpkinSky talk 02:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict, replying to Moe Epsilon) Possibly, but what's particularly frustrating is that other editors act like dicks far more frequently (though without using crude words, which doesn't make it any better) but no one gives a shit because they aren't swimming in a fishbowl, like Eric, where everyone is gaping, moving their finger across the glass, and occasionally even poking the fish. This attention is not Eric's fault alone, and even if it were, Eric's net value to the encyclopedia would still remain a high positive mark, in my opinion. I hope the administrators who handed in their tools out of disgust return and get their tools back. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We (the community) have given Eric tons of leeway to keep editing, by far many more chances than any other editor. We've had no less than 30 discussions at AN/ANI about him, arbitration cases, topic bans, blocks, and unblocks with conditions galore. We keep talking about this value to the encyclopedia he has, but really at some point he isn't of value if he keep getting involved in drama no matter how good his encyclopedia contributions are. Is it all his fault? No, but he doesn't help his cause at all. He doesn't walk away, he doesn't ignore the drama, he participates and it sinks himself in a deeper hole every time. The fact is this isn't a lone situation, and this isn't a couple of rogue administrators targeting him. This is a habitual problem of interacting with many, many editors. At some point we have to put a foot down to say Eric must adjust to the norms of this site, or he won't be around anymore. This defense of his poor attitude is rather disturbing; if it was someone else, they would have been indefblocked ten blocks ago, but obviously he has friends. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My main approach to Wikipedia is that of a reader. As a reader, I have greatly benefitted from his work (admittedly, I am interested in UK articles). As a crappy content-contributor and mostly silent observer of the so-called drama-boards, and of his talk page, because I'm one of the gaping gongoozlers, I hardly ever see his cantankerousness interfere with articles, and never on the basis of pushing a certain point of view. While lacking first-hand experience of collaboration with Eric in content-building, I see plenty of fruitful collaboration. I don't see his editing impeding on the improvement and creation of articles, on the contrary. To me, very personally, this is what counts. If he was legally or physically threatening or outting others, for example, I wouldn't care about his net value. I will continue to regard his occasional breaches of civility (a difficult concept, no matter which environment) as negligible, when looking at the big picture. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone identified and analysed the sets of circumstances that lead to Eric's troublesome behaviour? It would be great if we had a few admins willing and able to pursue such a higher-level approach to retaining high-performing content editors. Tony (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have some suspicions, including Eric - one of the last Wikidragons - being a good guy (check out how he helps noobs) yet easily irritable, reacting quickly and crudely to needling and ultimately being blocked, then people who are either jealous of Eric's writing abilities or those who are addicted to Schadenfreude manipulate him to get a kick (chase the dragon, as it were). I've never seen Eric lash out at someone who has a clean slate with him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to think that—plenty of the people that Eric's slapped deserved a good slapping—but I'm struggling to understand how Inglok (talk · contribs) lacked a "clean slate". Choess (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. (In this case, I think Eric was unhappy with this copyedit [which indirectly and likely unintentionally questions his writing skills] and possibly other issues at the time. Although I stand by my point that he often helps those in need, particularly noobs, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't question his helpfulness on many occasions—the Microsoft Security Essentials FAC comes to mind as an example where he won over someone who was initially put off by his critical reviewing style. But doesn't that argue for a little more equanimity when on the receiving end of "copyedit"? I'm not trying to construct some grand general principle here like "You always have to be nice to Randy in Boise" or "No profanity ever." But Inglok's copyedit, if a little pedantic, doesn't seem fallaciously so, like complaining about split infinitives or other prescriptive nonsense up with which we will not put. It was basically a question of taste; and for having the temerity to have his own opinion and seek to discuss it, he got a string of insults, of which "rules that aren't really rules" was the only part that seemed to have any bearing on the matter. That isn't right. Now, what consequences that should entail, I can't say. I've been a dick to people whom I subsequently realized didn't deserve it, and I didn't get blocked for a month, but the well is so hopelessly poisoned WRT Eric's behavior it's hard to say what the "right" course is. But for all the smacking of Randys determined to shove Guy Fawkes Night into Gunpowder Plot, sometimes Eric does go after people who don't really deserve it, and insisting they all had it coming, 100%, is just going to fuel the belief that he's a vested contributor who needs scalping. Choess (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, umm, maybe I'm an idiot and I should just stay out of this, but, after all the various failed proposals for RFA reform and desysopping reform, I can't help but wonder... can't we just go to a 50%+1 desysopping procedure? Sure, it would be filled with drama, but, to quote Churchill, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever an admin blocks a disruptive editor with a large fan base you get these kinds of discussions, and that's precisely why desysopping in that fashion would be a very bad idea.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm giving serious thought to reintroducing my old RfDA outline to the community; I feel like it'd be an excellent venue for bringing admins to task via the community, but still constrained enough to prevent axe grinding against front-line admins who naturally step on toes that deserve to be stepped on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo was suggesting late last year that he was considering introducing something ... I have User:Bwilkins/Admin Reform going through some early phases of preparation, and others have theirs in flight. The community will nto vote for ANY type of reform - the entrenched admins will fight against (usually), and we'll just end up with stagnation. Here's an idea: finish off your proposals. When Jimbo returns, we give him a list of the proposals. He can see a) we've all taken it seriously, b) he's got some smart people, and c) he can take the best pieces and put together something (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Good ideas except for the Jimbo part. He is extremely out of touch and lost his God King status years ago. Jimbo trying to impose something will only cause backlash.PumpkinSky talk 10:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree 200% with that, PumpkinSky. The godking isn't up to it. And if he has some smart people, I've never noticed him listening to them much. But what is there left of Bwilkins' proposal without Jimbo? There are people here who would perform the putting-something-together part well and who enjoy much general trust (Newyorkbrad comes to mind), but I really don't believe anybody except Jimbo has enough authority to be accepted as the herder of us cats. Jimbo's got some of that (in my opinion, Jimbo's authority is an obsolete remnant of instinctive kissing-up, but whatever), but he doesn't have — what was that you said, PS? — Jimbo's out of touch, right. Well put. Bwilkins's idea won't work without a King, that's the problem with it. [/me considers democracy in action as an alternative to enlisting the godking: people create a list of proposals as outlined by Bwilkins. Then we all have a general discussion about which are the best bits, and come to…uh… come to a consensus about it. Or even a consensus about how to set up a vote about it. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. /me sticks straws in hair. Please kill me now.] Bishonen | talk 15:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC).

Unfortunately, I agree that intervention ad Jimbonem would probably cause such a backlash as to defeat its own purpose. I seem to recall, back in December, that Jimbo's comments vaguely suggested the notion of him passing the GodKingShip to someone else. If that is a possibility, and he were to make it clear that such a successor's first order of business was to reform our (de)sysopping procedures, unilaterally if necessary, (and that successor were NYB, MBisanz, or someone else highly reliable), then that could have a solid chance of working. Or Jimbo could do it as a sort of "final decree" before finalizing his retirement from active GodKing duty.

Of course, there's a bit of a Catch-22 here... the awfulness of RFA and the near-impossibility of admin sanctions are a significant contributing factor to this community's excessive tolerance of trolls. I think that if we were to fix all this, in a few years you'd have a lot less people going to admins' talk pages to yell at them, since whenever the discussion gets too heated, the admin could just say "Well, if you really have a problem, go request my desysop." However, either ironically or fittingly, depending on how you look at it, it's those same trolls who will present a problem in any attempt at unilateral action. Especially if you consider that there are multiple admins who stalk Jimbo's edits to complain about them. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Launching three RfCs simultaneously - excellent idea (mine is also ready to go). Needs careful coordination, and they would all need to be RFC/Cent with watchlist notices. It would certainly give the community (and Wales) something to think about, and be a knee-jerk for the anti-admin brigade. Doesn't matter in the slightest if these proposals are similar.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen, thank you for informing me of this discussion, you were correct that I did not receive a notification due to my having moved to my old account. Anyway, while I certainly appreciate your concern for the project, as the person who was blocked by User:Sandstein I cannot get behind any movement to sanction him and/or remove his bit. Consider it this way: I made an uncivil comment and Sandstein blocked me for it. In my opinion he should have attempted to discuss it with me first but he made a judgment call and it's one I respect (even if I was more upset at the time). Point being, I made a mistake and I think he made a mistake by blocking me for it. But to then seek sanctions on him would, in my mind, be making the same mistake I think he made. If you take a look at my block review on AN/I right now I think you'll see that Sandstein and I are engaged in a healthy dialogue about proper blocking procedure and it seems both of us are receptive to the others arguments. With that said, you as an admin likely understand how difficult it can be to balance the dual roles of policy enforcer and regular editor. On one hand admins are theoretically "just another user" but our community dynamic seems to demand that admins be both perfect mediators and strict enforcers. Obviously such competing demands are impossible to manifest in a single editor, and so admins run the gamut from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Now, I don't know if there's a history here I'm ignoring and I'm only going off of my direct, recent experience and my knowledge of his productive work at WP:AE, but based on said experience I would not consider our dispute problematic enough to be the proverbial last straw. N^oformation ^Talk 16:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

When I ran for the Arbitration Committee seven months ago, this was just as much an issue then as it is now. I had been around for Wikipedia for five years, and I think my position on a wide variety of matters has been made clear from the actions I have taken and the comments I have made. Since my election, which I think it is pretty safe to say was supported by a wide cast of folks, I have served on the Committee for half a year now. I don't know if I have voted to desysop a single administrator so far, nor have I voted to accept a case that seemed likely to lead to that result. If folks want the Arbitration Committee to be more hardline on administrators, it is not me they should have elected, nor (re-)elected half of ACE2012 victors. It's not that I'm unwilling to desysop administrators. I simply come and have come to different conclusions than the vocal part (minority) of the community that generally comments on these sort of things. NW (Talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seen multiple people make some comments here that I want to comment about eventhough I know that few really care about my opinions on the matter anymore.

• First, someone mentioned that the community can't be trusted to desysop. That's completely wrong, if the community can be trusted to gant someone the tools then they can be trusted to remove them too.
• Next, and I have been saying this for a while, the Arbcom process is pretty much crap and needs to be eliminated and replaced. I admit I'm not sure what should take its place because we probably need something like it, but the current one just doesn't work. The process is inconsistent, has an obvious result when cases dealing with users involved is concerned and heavily favors admins.
• The way the process currently works only Arbcom can remove the tools for cause, the Beauracrats can do it on request and temporarily under certain circumstances. So if the Arbcom doesn't want the responsibility, and given some of their recent case decisions they probably shouldn't have it IMO, then it needs to go somewhere. IMO back to the community with a 2nd review done by the Beauracrats. If the person is beauracrat then it should go to Arbcom.
• Adminship shouldn't be for life. Many admins start off levelheaded and with good intentions but over time the system gives them a big head. They know that its nearly impossible to remove the tools so they get more and more aggressive. Several have been mentioned here and there are others as well. AS vocal as I have been about admin abuse I have also said many times its a minority of about a dozen out of the 1400 admins. We need to make it easier to get the tools and easier to take them away when the admins go rogue. We shouldn't beb encouraging the good ones to give up the tools because they are tired of the abusive admins taking advantage of the system.Kumioko (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, after seeing how this year is going, that I too am seriously considering supporting abolishing arbcom. I think we should reconfirm admins every two years and adopt the DE WIKI type of adminship (see above). PumpkinSky talk 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Above, both Risker and Newyorkbrad have invited us to take a problem admin to ArbCom. NYB and Carcharoth seemed to welcome a clear case at Request to desysop Hex. Since a number of editors above have candidates in mind, let's choose one and adjourn to another place and see if we can construct a clear, coherent case. A user's talk page would be fine in my opinion: I see no need for some kind of formal framework or venue for that. If we're satisfied our case is clear and sound, I'm sure ArbCom would give it serious consideration.

One thing, though. I'd be opposed to desysopping any of the admins I'm concerned about. All I'd ask is that they be restricted from blocking outside of obvious vandals and socks or some other narrowly-defined restriction/s addressing their particular shortcoming/s. The admins I have in mind are very hard-working and well-intentioned and generally a huge asset to the community (that view might change in light of evidence) and use many admin tools regularly, so I see no benefit in restricting unproblematical tool use.

See Newyorkbrad's comment here. (I also commend to you NYB's suggestion regarding a nuanced response to 3RR breaches in the thread below that one.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess as well as due process being a foreign concept around here, double jeopardy is too. — Scott • talk 10:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthony has explained to me that his comment was referring to the method in which that was handled - I misread it as saying that it could be used as one of the candidates that he referred to, in a test case for a new procedure. My apologies, Anthony. I'm striking the comment accordingly. — Scott • talk 17:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Scott, when you offer an opinion right after — and presumably because of — a mention of Request to desysop Hex, it would be helpful to mention that you are the editor formerly known as Hex. Can't expect people to know these things. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC).

Anyone who's interested will click through to see who "Hex" is. It's hardly rocket surgery, is it. By the way, when I suggested recently that Eric/Malleus's current block log should contain a link to his old one for that same reason, I was roundly rebuffed. What's your opinion on that? — Scott • talk 12:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's rather circular. Why would anybody be interested if they don't know there's something to be interested in? If they've become interested now, your interesting talkpage would be the place to look; not the front of it but the history. As for Eric/Malleus, I don't run to any public opinions in that area. There seems to be an embarrassment of riches of them without my input. Though I admit the idea that the log should contain a link made me blink a little. (How would that even work, other issues apart?) Never mind, I'm done on this page, and I'm not greatly interested in disputing with you at any time. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC).

Admin blocked User with an expiry time of 1 second (Linking to old account's block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User)

Not saying it should or shouldn't be done. Like you, I stay out of that hornet's nest. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't accurate to say I rebuffed you, Scott. You were reminded that it would cause drama and would look WP:POINTy, even if that wasn't the intent. Sometimes, it is better to wait until the heat dies down, then get a consensus of some kind. To do it that day would have been like pouring gas on a fire, so I naturally recommended prudence. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Dennis. Anyway, Bishonen's left this conversation so I'm no longer interested in pursuing the query. — Scott • talk 14:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "let's choose one" sounds a bit Macchiavellian, but I kind of like the idea. We'd've had the perfect test case a few months ago, with whomever it was who decided that sometimes AFD was wrong, in which case he was doing the community a favor by undeleting the page, but I think all of that wound up fizzling and dying. Still, there are others, I'm sure. I also agree with you that most of the problematic admins don't need to be desysopped. There's one admin who's commented here, for instance, who has a habit of making bad blocks or otherwise strange administrative actions, and then refusing to give a clear answer when called on it; but that only happens occasionally, and other than that he's a good admin. If you look through old ArbCom cases, it seems that in the old days they had far more nuanced sanctions for sysops... perhaps those should be brought back. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the Pratyeka request. Consensus emerged - and I agreed - that the ANI thread and arbitration request had sufficiently impressed on Pratyeka that norms had changed, so further action was probably overkill. In that discussion (and below) Salvio suggests that the community may apply limited restrictions to individual admins' tool use without having to bother ArbCom:

"... in my opinion, the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him – which means that a ban from using the "undelete" button is OK, but a ban from (un)deleting, (un)blocking and (un)protecting would not be acceptable. As it happens, it's something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis."

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions were asked for. I have one. Term limits for admins. Stand for a new RFA every year or two. Mavericks will be weeded out, and leaders will emerge in time. Of course the RFA process would become more of a popularity contest than it already is, but honestly, it already is that. My only fear would be that some admins might avoid making controversial decisions when considering how it might effect his/her next stand for RFA, but at this point, maybe a little less shooting from the hip, and a little more consideration of the consequences is what is needed now. Ditch ∝ 02:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns for administrator term limits are correct. Term limits will very much turn into something similar to the U.S. government, trying to bid for the next term and not taking any stance on the real issues while resolving non-controversial ones. We don't need politicians, we need administrators who will do something according to the policy and guidelines set by the community and not someone who does something because they have friends. People will complain, regardless if they "shoot from the hip" or whether they take a step back and consider consequences because there are cabals of editors who coordinate with each other based on their agenda (including editors on both sides of this issue). Editors on both sides of the issue with Eric are just as guilty of abuse that they claim. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And we would turn into the German Wikipedia which has that problem. --Rschen7754 04:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Admins, at least the 20 or so who work in the front-line without a Kevlar™ vest, have to make controversial judgements even when they are perfectly correct and within policy of conduct and tool use. Term limits are a bad idea. A resyoping venue would be a kangaroo court with the anti-admin brigade for a jury. Those 20 or so would be the first to go. In any case, with 1,600 admins already, a review every two years - or any other period - would be impossible to manage. So we're stuck with what we've got: Arbcom (which is bogged down in its own bureaucracy), or some new system, such as a Bureaucrats' Admin Review Committee (BARC) for example, that could fast-track individual cases of admin abuse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't know the relevance, but we have no where near 1,600 admins anymore, we have exactly 1,439 now. The number is slowly falling every month due to inactivity with lots of former admins going into long-term inactivity (making it ineligible to become resysopped without an RFA). I've brought it up before and the general response was "it's no big deal, inactive admins will come back", or "they were inactive anyways, so it has no effect on us". Well, inactivity desysops don't stop, and there isn't a shortage of them, because the number of former administrator accounts we have is now seriously close to the number of active administrators we have. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony, if you don't want an admin desysopped but rather only restricted, there is no need to seize ArbCom, in my opinion. As I said during Pratyeka's case request, I believe the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In theory, you are correct. In practice, there are a number of people who think that admin shouldn't have topic bans and if an admin can't be trusted in one area and won't voluntarily disengage, then they should be taken to Arb and be desysoped. I don't agree with this, but it is a legitimate position, and in the end they oppose and we end up with no consensus. As a whole, the community has the ability but not the will. If Arb won't take it, nothing gets done. And if Arb won't take it, there is no incentive for admin to voluntarily disengage before it goes too far. It is a stalemate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Wizarman: "Here's the problem: who would we trust to desysop bad admins?"—I've never understood why en.WP has a distaste for trusting its crats, given that they have to pass a 90% hurdle. They are seriously underused. Tony (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a quick solution is fairly straightforward. The way we're set up now, it is relatively easy for admins to block users but really hard for any other admin to unblock them. The unblocking admin must consult the blocking admin and/or take it to AN or ANI (rather unpleasant mostly). We should instead have an explicit system where any admin can undo a block as long as they state a good reason for doing so. On wikipedia we have a culture that prefers to block - whether it be for the use of a verboten word or whether it be for edit warring - and we need to change that into a culture that encourages us to keep more editors unblocked rather than blocked. New rules for desysopping is not going to change anything. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's actually a good point by Tony. Why not just have a desysop process managed by the bureaucrats? It's not the community and not arbcom so both sides win. Wizardman 16:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I agree with Dennis, if we are going to topic ban and admin then that means they no longer have the trust of the community and the tools should be removed. The community doesn't allow editors they deem to be untrustworthy (myself included) to have the tools so we should treat admins the same way.
      • I also agree with Tony on his point, the Beauracrats can be trusted with this but IMO so can the community. We are trusted to give them the tools, we should be trusted to take them away. The beauracrats can make the final determination as they do now. Otherwise we might as well let the beauracrats decide who gets the admin tools and take that away from the community too. Because to insuate that we can be trusted with giving but no take away is just horseshit and insulting.
      • And again, I think eliminating the term of admin and breaking up the tools into sets will fix most of these problems. Stop making it so we have to have the whole set to edit a template or see a special page. Eliminate the heirarchy and culture that admins are better than editors. Get rid of the us and them mentality. Make it easier to grant and revoke access to the tools. Its ridiculous to make someone go through the RFA gauntlet to be able to pull in more than 25, 000 articles in AWB or any number of other things. But these have all been brought up before and they won't get anywhere just like this discussion in general. The community doesn't have the ability to change it, Arbcom doesn't have the will and the WMF doesn't have the desire. So no matter how much we complain about abusive admins and what to do about them, where stuck with them because we allowed the system to get this way and we can't fix it.Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • That isn't exactly what I said. I said some members of the community believe this, although you have proven my point. I'm of the idea that in some situations, sanctions short of desysop are appropriate. This doesn't and won't happen because the community is divided on this idea. I'm happy to comply with whatever the consensus of the community is; the problem is that there is no consensus, so Arb is the only venue available. I'm not against Crats having more authority, but it is up to the community to determine the limits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

          Sorry my mistake. I should have been clearer. And again were hopelessly screwed because I think we all know that the community cannot decide much of anything. Let alone giving the beauracrats more power to desysop. Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

          • When I see statements like this from admin/beauracrats saying take it to Arbcom. Knowing that Arbcom won't do anything, it really reinforces who truly fucking broken our system is. When the power elite shove statements like that back in peoples faces knowing they are above reproach, it makes me think even more that further investment of my time in this place just ain't worth it. Whether the action of removing it was right or wrong (I think removing it was wrong BTW since it dealt with the individual) responding like that, just makes me think even less of that admin than I already did. Rschen is right at the top IMO of the type of admin we can do without. Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

            Thank you for the courtesy of notifying me of this discussion. And I forgot to mention that I am open to recall - have you thought about that? --Rschen7754 20:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

            I was about to notify you but you posted here before I had the chance so I didn't bother. Open to recall is a worthless process. The only way it works is if the admin voluntarily gives up the tools. Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

            And this is precisely the reason why I'll always oppose any process which allows the community to desysop admins. The community is far too prone to react to situations where an admin has made a mistake (not saying that this particular case was one, I haven't really checked) as a mob, adopting an "off with his head" approach. Even assuming for the sake of the argument Rschen fouled up, there is no reason or need to jump immediately to the most serious sanction in our arsenal, unless there is a pattern of tool misuse/abuse.

            To Dennis: I disagree that proposals to ban an admin from using part of his toolset would necessarily be deadlocked by people who argue that either admins can be trusted with all tools or they must be desysopped, as Pratyeka's case shows; then again, that probably was a peculiar case. That said, I'm willing to consider imposing such sanctions, should a case where it's warranted end up before ArbCom. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

            • That's ok but then if the community truly can't be trusted to desysop someone then they shouldn't be trusted to give them the tools either. The RFA process is just as prone to bring up little things and jump to conclusions so they same logic you present that says the community cannot be trusted also extends to desysopping. And no one is saying the Rschen should be brought before Arbcom. What pissed me off was that Rschen told PS to take it to Arbcom knowing that Arbcom just shot down his proposal to Desysop Hex. If they shot his down with his track record there's no way they would accept one on Rschen. So for him to be that pointy, is a perfect example of the kind of attitude that we don't need as admins...according to comments from many RFA's including mine. Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

              Uh, for the record I did not file the ArbCom case request on Hex; I don't even remember if I commented on it or not. --Rschen7754 20:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

              (edit conflict) Oh, I apologise, I had misunderstood what you meant. For the record, I agree that's a suboptimal response. Regarding the fact that the community is prone to the same nitpickiness, again, unfortunately I concur. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

              @Salvio giuliano, no worries.

              @Rschen7754, my apologies. I meant that PumpkinSky submitted it, not that you did. I see how that was confusing how I worded that. Kumioko (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • Let's not turn this into a place to complain about every little thing every admin's ever done to piss us off, okay? If you ask me, PumpkinSky's behavior there is a prime example of the endless harrassment admins are subjected to, which makes it so hard to get an honest answer out of them when you actually do have a reasonable concern. (Indeed, there have been two cases brought up here where a major element of the issue was the admin's refusal to admit their failure... in large part, no doubt, due to the fact that they figured it was Just Another Trumped-Up Admin Abuse Complaint.) PumpkinSky should be ashamed of himself. If less people pulled shit like that, people would take legitimate complaints more seriously. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

            • And indeed if less admins dismissed admin complaints we would have more faith in the system...or the system would function the way its supposed to. As it is, when the admins are allowed to do and act as they please while the rest of us dumb editors are blocked or warned for the same behavior it doesn't really reflect well or cause me to have much sympathy in the poor abused admins. Let me be clear. I don't have any faith whatsoever that the system will be fixed because it would require admin support to pass anything. And since the admins have a vested interest in the status quo, there isn't much incentive for them to change it. So unless the WMF directs a change or the Arbcom votes to change something (both of which are excessively unlikely) we are stuck with what we have. A broken abusive system where admins are allowed to act out like children and editors are told they can't be trusted to be admins for the same behavior. Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think structural problems lie in the hourly time scale cycle of AN/I and the monthly time scale and bureaucracy of ArbCom. Kumioko paint an unfair picture of admins in general, he seems to be painting the very biased set of admins super active at ANI. I suggest a Block Review forum along the lines of WP:DRV and WP:MR. These are very good at calming, giving space to dissent, and giving long term primacy to the mythological Concensus, and without pretending to make anyone happy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• I recommend this ahead of, and as a precondition of the proposal below, in the first instance. This proposal is for a forum to discuss the block. The proposal below will discuss the person. As a rule, in the first instances, it is better to discuss the action than to discuss the person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Community desysopping proposal: I'm just going to give a high-level overview, but here goes. If X number of trusted users (criteria TBD) in Y days call for the desysopping of an administrator, then the administrator will be forced to run a reconfirmation RfA (whose percentage required for retaining adminship may differ from gaining the tools at an ordinary RfA) after a waiting period of Z days, during which the administrator retains his/her tools. (Days may be replaced with weeks or months if appropriate.) I think a lot of the objections to community desysopping in the past have been that a mob mentality will rush to punish an admin for an isolated incident, so imposing a mandatory waiting period will hopefully cool down the mob a bit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Broadly support this. I was gonna add some random thoughts on things that could be fine-tuned, but thought better of it. I think it would be better for this to run more as a straw poll than as an in-depth discussion. If there's sufficient support, an at-least-two-phase RFC would be necessary regardless. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I should note that I think the proposed waiting period is the crucial part of this, for the precise reasons you've cited. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If it was submit the diffs, a crat determines if it's valid, and then wait _ days before voting, that might be a start. --Rschen7754 23:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• The community (or, rather, a portion thereof) has repeatedly shown that they're incapabe of forgiving and they never forget (which is one of the current problems with RfA). Allowing them to desysop admins will mean, in my opinion, that whoever was once "slighted" by a sysop will make sure to watchlist this admin's reconfirmation RfA, ready to jump on the bandwagon.

  Admins sometimes do have to make unpopular calls (especially those working in sensitive areas such as the ones under discretionary sanctions); to allow the community to yank someone's tools will only mean, I fear, that sysops will only make what's expedient and not what's correct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think that's true. If the admin makes a bad call here and there, its not that big of a deal. If the admin works in a high impact area like CCI or ANI then maybe some exception can be made. But non one is saying we should start mass submitting admins for Desysopping, certainly not me. But there are some indiciduals who have been routinely rude and abrasive and have a history of being unnecessarily aggressive, abusive and frankly shouldn't be trusted with the tools. Aside from that, remember we have to get some kind of a community consensus just like we do at RFA and IMO the crats should have second review just like RFA. If they feel the admin is being walked down the plank then they can decline to desysop them. But if the individual has a clear history of abuse such as some of the individuals listed here above, and the community can show a pattern of abuse and a consensus that the admin no longer has the trust of the community, then the crats should go with that as appropriate. My recommendation is that similar rules as an RFA should apply. Shorter duration and maybe even a hogher percentage requirement to remove the tools. Kumioko (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd strongly suggest anyone seriously proposing Community De-Adminship read over the history of WP:CDA, the 2010 attempt which failed consensus due to Admins !voting against it in large numbers. I believe the same thing would happen now. The only way something like this can pass is if admins are disqualified from a !vote, which is unlikely. Which is regrettable, seeing as CDA, in my view, is needed more than ever. Jusdafax 12:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Excellent point. Change will never happen as long as those with vested interests are capable of voting to protect themselves. PumpkinSky talk 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
        • To quote the final summation on the 2010 Community De-Adminship Rfc as stated by Tryptofish (who did a substantial amount of work on the proposal and Rfc) "The final poll numbers are 167 (44%) support, 190 (50%) oppose, and 25 (6%) neutral. (Looking only at the supports and opposes, the percentages are 47% support and 53% oppose.)" The exact percentage of the opposing !votes who were admins escapes me, but if I remember correctly it was a sizable majority of those Rfc oppose !votes. Jusdafax 14:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Radical proposal

RfAs are basically an "unpopularity contest" for what ought to be a "functionary position." In fact, they are precisely akin to having people vote on who gets a drivers license. What is needed is a system which gets rid of the current broken RfA system, and institutes a system where experienced editors are given "drivers tests" on admin tasks, and those who pass such tests are made admins with strict provisos that they can not use the admin tools in any way which anyone could say they were "involved." That a committee be chosen which would review the performance of admins, and have the power to suspend or revoke the "drivers licenses." Admins should cease to be "judge, jury and executioner" but be redefined more as referees or umpires, charged with maintaining an orderly venue, and not with making broad and sweeping decisions on their own. I realize this is radical, but I suggest that it ought to get reasoned discussion. Collect (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The only reason it wouldn't work is because with as much backlog and work that actually needs to be done, there isn't enough active administrators to sit their time aside from that to play referee to full-time administrative hopefuls. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Without a mechanism for radically overhauling RfAs - in a few years, the tasks for the admins will absolutely be undoable as so few replacement admins will be elected. This at least gives a prayer to replenish the ranks. Collect (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever solutions are going to be suggested, we must at all costs avoid any that expose admins to witch hunts, kangaroo courts, and lynch justice. With the growing general antipathy towards all admins, and the confidence that appears to waning for Arbcom, that may not be so easy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All or nothing

Above (and elsewhere) Salvio pointed out that nothing is stopping the community from applying limited restrictions to an admin's tool use. Dennis responded above that some argue (though he disagrees) that if a person demonstrates incompetence in the use of one admin tool, they don't have sufficient judgment to be trusted with any admin tools.

I too disagree with this. The skill set needed to sensitively and intelligently assess a conflict involving apparent rudeness, misunderstandings, deceit, bias, ill will, mental illness, hurt feelings, stupidity, etc. and devise a solution that may include blocking is of a very different kind than the skill set required to assess blatant vandalism and socking or an article's conformity with WP:GNG. Frankly, the former skill set is relatively rare in the society at large, and appears to be in even shorter supply here.

The present RfA process is incapable of thoroughly assessing in advance a candidate's competency in all domains of tool use, so it is inevitable that a number (most?) will turn out to be excellent and valuable in many areas of tool use, but less competent in others. The community should not needlessly deny itself the ability to restrict an admin's tool use in one or two areas where they have demonstrated poor judgement, while permitting the editor to continue contributing in all the other areas where they perform well. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's my big problem with that perennial suggestion. What will happen is that the permissions request will dividied up big time, with how to determine that being an issue in itself. The end result, even best case scenario, will be at least eight different processes for the block tool, the delete toll, the protect tool, the move (override) tool, etc. What would make it worse is if every process ends up as rfa, with 20 questions asked about how you would rule in hypothetical situation G while people grill you over trivial edits from years ago. It's silly now but it would be far more so for one tool. For as much as people say it's so perfect in theory, it would falter in practice. Wizardman 04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Deciding a volunteer may not edit protected templates for a year or block editors for a year is something the community can do at existing venues such as AN or ANI, just as we presently decide they can't edit BLPs for a year or interact with editor X for a year. (We're talking about restricting the behaviour of existing admins who've demonstrated problematical performance in an aspect of administration.) This isn't creating different user groups. They would still be in "sysop". We just tell them not to do something for a while and they (presumably) don't do that thing for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Deleted one, added one sentence (in parenthesis) to clarify my meaning. 08:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

RfA is a process in which a candidate's edits and competency and maturity are taken into consideration - at least by the !voters who do their homework. This means that a candidate is accorded the responsibility of adminship based on their ability to use their judgement and all their tools responsibly. IMO, Admins who demonstrate a pattern of misjudgement or reckless use of any of the tools should be desysoped - perhaps not immediately, but certainly if there is no improvement after sufficient warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I have to disagree somewhat with Kudpung on this one. RFA has less to do with ones campetency and maturity and everything to do with how popular the candidate is. Lots of candidates are mature in terms of age and attitude and lots of editors are competent. The problem lies often in when that editor participates in things that are Administrative in nature but doesn't have the tools yet. They build enemies and then when they submit, they get voted down. I do agree with the rest though that admins who show a pattern of reckless use should be desysopped. But that is also why I think its imprtant to break up the toolset. I may not trust someone to block or delete revisions but I may trust them to see special restricted pages, pull in more than 25, 000 articles into AWB, edit a protected template or use access the API. Skills that are not, by the way, inherently administrative anyway. Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What would make that worse, Wizardman, is the tendency of people to oppose for "hat collecting", so someone seeking the block, delete, protection, move override, rollback flag granting, and edit interface privileges would come across as some power-mad lunatic, versus today's RfA candidate that just wants to help out. Six processes versus one. That would be a massive, massive step backwards. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably not power-mad lunatics, but for over 2 years I've been one of the most regular admins at WP:PERM where I have processed hundreds of requests, I've actually accorded only 96 perms. In my experience, a high number are quite obviously hat collecting by young and/or relatively new users. An impressive number get blocked for some reason or another including socks. For the 3 or 4 admins who regularly work there, it's a significant work load. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Out at Wikidata we have four common non-admin flags (confirmed, autopatrolled, propertycreator, and rollbacker) and already that's a lot to manage, and attracts hat collectors. (Confirmed is a big deal there since autoconfirmed is 4 days and 50 edits). We already have 3 big ones here (AP, rollback, reviewer) and adding more would not be a great idea. --Rschen7754 08:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. This subthread, though it's on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, is discussing restrictions that don't require bureaucrat involvement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A thought

Just a quick thought from me in passing, to maybe seed some discussion... All this stuff about admin removal is fine, but are you not ignoring the real problem that lies behind the recent issues? It's Wikipedia's badly-flawed Civility policy and its implementation. If you call anyone an asshole you get the book thrown at you, but you can be as nasty and poisonous an asshole as you want and if you're careful enough not to use any swear words, nobody gives a fuck. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an aspect of the civility problem - the inability of some admins to distinguish abusive and insulting behaviour when it doesn't involve swear words, especially when the insult is fragmented over several paragraphs or conversations and can only be seen when all those are added together.

• Another is our failure to take account of the different norms for different venues that normal society insists on for smooth function. We should have a different standard for each of 1. article space (strict), 2. user space (very liberal) and 3. project space (somewhere in between).
• And our behaviour should also be tempered by whom we address and who is watching.

Two familiar old-timers going at each other hammer-and-tongs on one of their user talk pages should be left to get on with it, IMO. But if a relative stranger/newbie asks a question on your talk page, it's almost never OK to call them humiliating names.

I think these two variables - who and where - should be discussed somewhere in a policy or guideline. I might just go and look at WP:CIVIL. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this doesn't account for all of it, but tl;dr. It's easy to tell if someone's being called an asshole, but being a jerk is harder to detect. --Rschen7754 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a problem with our civility policy. If someone throws around insults left and right he should be blocked, no matter who he is. The problem is the other people, those who are smart enough not to throw around insults while still being as insulting as possible (you know who you are). Just because they exist doesn't mean that we might as well allow any kind of insults around here. We should do the opposite and find out ways to stop the other group of editors from abusing the system. We need Wikipedia:Don't be a jerk, basically. --Conti|✉ 13:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Hundreds of pages of discussions, policies, etc, could be eliminated if everyone just followed one simple rule: "Be nice." Useight's Public Sock (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) re to Anthony: "Two familiar old-timers going at each other hammer-and-tongs on one of their user talk pages should be left to get on with it, IMO." AMEN and testify brother. I'm an old cuss myself, and if any admin. ever blocked another editor that I was "bickering" with just because he called me an asshole (let's face it, I can be one); especially if I had said something about him being a jerk - ya know what? I would be very sorely tempted to block that nosey admin. I know ALL "talk" pages are open to public view; but how can we say "oh, it's ok for you to delete any posts you want from your talk", and then turn around and start crying about civility? This user is blocked for a month because he called someone an "asshole" ON. A. USER. TALKPAGE? Really? Are you honestly that pedantic and dense? And then you turn a blind eye to new users or teenish kids filing daily AN/I reports about "mean old admins. who yelled at me about my signature" - or protecting a page, or reverting 5 times in 6 days (but I didn't have 3RR in 24 hours) .. or whatever. Yea - much to be improved upon with this project. Does anyone really, and I mean REALLY wonder where all the truly good admins. have gone? OK .. I admit it, a bit of a rant there - so </rant> - and you folks have a good week. Since I did have an ec - Useight .. I agree with that too in concept .. try to be nice .. but the real world doesn't always make it that easy or even possible. Great thought though. — Ched :  ?  14:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, he called three different people (TheDJ, Doc9871 and Timeshifter) in three different posts "asshole", one of them not on a user talkpage, and two an idiot (Inglok and Doc9871). All of these over the space of a few hours, and not in retaliation to being called a jerk or something similar, and not just with old-timers. Fram (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OK .. If I owe you or anyone an apology for taking some Oliver Stoneesque liberties in the telling of my hypothetical scenario, then I apologize. I haven't been active enough to know details, and only have a Reader's Digest version. Sill - I stand by my own thoughts on similar things. — Ched :  ?  14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologize, it is just that when simplifications and (mild) hyperbole get repeated too often, they tend to be taken as the truth. Sometimes clarifying what in fact happened can help put things back into perspective. That doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to disagree with the block, the civility policies, or other relevant issues of course. Fram (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a fair description of the proximal cause of the block in question, Fram. But it does not address the underlying, and far more insidious, issues that led to the state of bad-feeling that preceded it. For that, I refer the audience to my opening comment in this section. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ideas from afar (aka offwiki land)

Firstly, hope this section ended up in the right place, secondly why is this on BN again?

Regardless, here goes. If we look at other (non-WMF) wiki projects and see what their policies are regarding things, in particular for this discussion adminship, we may gain some good insight.

• Let's look first at one that at least everyone should've heard of - Bulbapedia. Yes it's about Pokemon, and yes their policies are different, but that's the point. For adminship there, you go through levels.
  • First, the "Editorial Board", basically just the staff of the Bulbagarden sites, picks you to be a "Junior" administrator. From Bulbapedia:Junior Administrator: "Junior Administrators on Bulbapedia are users which have been granted limited administrative powers on the wiki, as a testing ground before moving them up to higher ranks. With few exceptions, users will begin at the Junior Administrator rank, and on demonstrating considerable prowess, may be promoted. Unsatisfactory Junior Administrators will be demoted, while ones that do not exhibit any particular strong qualities may remain at this level." Basically, Junior Admins on Bulbapedia are the delete tool holders, as well as undeleters. They can't block, they can't unblock, etc.
  • If you do good, you can be promoted to regular administrator. Regular admins on Bulbapedia have additional access to the protect and block features (as well as the un- of these), and CU access on Bulbapedia. Not saying regular admins on enwp should get CU, just quoting Bulbapedia policy.
  • Finally, there's the senior admins, who have bigdelete, can remove people from groups requiring them to use preview and the abuse group (helps enforce their userspace policy), and view the CU log.
  • Then, crats add and remove people from the three admin groups, as well as promote and demote between them. Crats are the only ones who can edit MediaWiki namespace, and they have access to OS from non-crats (OS is bundled with every crat bit there, I assume).
• Not saying this is how enwp should operate directly copied from these rules, but it's a thought. Especially because they seem to get along quite well. I know it's been proposed before, but having ranks/levels of adminship could help a lot with the structure and other issues around RfA. Maybe have different Jr. Admin bits for those who want to do different Jr. Admin tasks. Have a "Jr. Blocking Admin" and a "Jr. Deleting Admin" or a "Jr. CSD Admin", etc.

We can learn a lot from other wiki projects, and we should try to do so. If anyone has any other wikis they can bring up it'd be great, as summarizing this one wiki has tired me out. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, just no. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So we should admit that Wikipedia is an MMORPG? ;-) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Pokemon an MMORPG now? I'm confused on how you think it is. @Reaper Eternal: what part of this is a bad idea? It's suggested that we have a "proving ground" stage and/or a stage where admins can be restricted. I gave an example where (albeit a more extreme) a version of that works on a wiki project. Wikipedia isn't a bubble, learn from outside sites that use wikis. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see how an explicit system of levelling up, ranks and promotions, and referring to editors with fewer hats than yourself as "junior" is both utterly contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for, and grossly insulting to pretty much every single person here, then to be blunt you really don't understand either the culture or the purpose of Wikipedia. To echo Reaper Eternal, "No, just no". 78.149.172.10 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't call them "junior" "senior" etc. then. But Wikipedia could already be seen as levelling up. New -> Autoconfirmed -> Rb/rv/fm/etc -> admin -> crat -> functionary -> arbcom - or many other pathways. Like I said, there's no way we should just copy any other system. But we definitely should look at other systems and see how they operate. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 19:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have a system of hat collecting, so arguments to the contrary are really pointless. I don't really care for the idea of levelling up either. I think its better to eliminate the Admin title completely and break up the tool set. There are really only 2 or 3 things that an admin does that might need to stay restricted, Block/Unblock, Granting roles and Reversion deletions. All the rest can be broken out into subroles. Anyone who wants one of the ones I mentioned can run for admin. Those who don't care about that, like myself, can just apply for the other pieces that we need like editing protected templates or seeing deleted content or seeing special unviewable pages like Unwatched articles. All the talk about hat collecting is just being argumentative IMO. If someone wants to collect "hats" and is either A. helping the project or B. Not doing anything abusive, then they can, IMO collect all the hats they want. They can even build a little shelf on their userpage and display them for all their friends and family. If they are being abusive, then we should take them away. Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That was kinda my point - breaking up the toolkit into more breakups. But regardless, if anyone knows of other massive Wiki sites that could be looked at, please bring them up. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Prowess??? - that's the word that clinches it, isn't it? Compring Wikipedia with POkemi is not only comparing apples with oranges, it's comparing things that are not in the slightest bit related whatsoever. The day we appoint our admins, 'crats, arbs, etc. as part of an award system will be the day that Wikipedia loses all its image of being a serious project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Straying from the Bulbapedia discussion above I am sure there have been discussions about splitting up the admin tools before, can anyone remember where? ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 08:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been so many , and they all ended with no consensus to change the status quo. I think I participated in all of them over the past two or three years, but I have no better way for searching for them now than you would. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I discovered this discussion by chance (two non-obvious clicks from my watchlist) and I do not think this is a proper place to have it. It should be moved to a venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or smth similar, to provide for broader participation.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This Potentially this might be the right time to do that (especially with the section directly above). This sort of links in with a discussion at AN also! Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_the_community_free_to_restrict_an_admin.27s_use_of_some_but_not_all_admin_tools.3F ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 07:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough talk, action time

Enough talk, time for action. Too many innocent victims. Crats: time to form up your desyssyop board! We certainly can't count on Arbcom to do anything. PumpkinSky talk 02:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support PumpkinSky talk 02:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support desysopping should not be as difficult as it is. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• I weigh in here with some trepidation, both because I see that many Wikipedians whom I respect believe there is a serious problem demanding a solution, and because as I sitting arbitrator I could be perceived as selfishly clinging to one of the ArbCom's "powers" if I'm don't support sharing the Committee's power of desysopping with another group. However, I'm not sure whence comes the idea that there is a systematic problem of rogue admins whom the Committee is reluctant to act against. The Committee has desysopped admins within recent memory (and ironically, in a couple of instances was harshly criticized for doing so). It has seriously considered desysopping others and ultimately settled on lesser remedies based on factors including extensive community input received (I'm thinking for example of last year's "Perth" case). Several admins about whom concerns have been raised (no names needed here) have not been brought to ArbCom's attention, so I can't opine as to what might have happened if they had, but the results certainly can't just be assumed. There seems to be some disappointment about the outcome of the most recent request for arbitration against an administrator that was declined last month, but several of the votes to decline it were explicitly based on that admin's promises to change several aspects of his practices, and in the admittedly short time since the request was closed, I've seen no allegation that he has taken even a single disputed action, so it may be a bit premature to chalk that one up as an arbitration failure. Finally, there is also the issue that we have a request that the bureaucrats set up a "desysopping board" although there is no indication that the bureaucrats are interested in such an assignment, nor, equally importantly, why the bureaucrats (who are selected by the same community as the arbitrators) or the respected users they might place on such a board (if that is the intention) would necessarily use any different or more severe standards than the arbitrators do in deciding who needs to be desysopped. I won't say "opposed" at this time (and perhaps not at all) but I do have to say "unconvinced so far." Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • • The "Perth" case? Wasn't that the one where the arbs voted to detool kwami, after a unanimous vote of the community not to? —Neotarf (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • There were proposals made to desysop three admins for participation in a short-lived "wheel war," all of which I opposed. Ultimately one desysopping was passed while the other two received lesser remedies. I don't mean to reopen that case here, but merely to point out that the ArbCom does accept cases to review administrator conduct, and that when it does, the community is not uniformly in favor of the strictest sanction as some of this thread's discussion might seem to imply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I believe it was two, the third and fourth in the wheel war cycle, but your point is well taken. My point was that the arbs don't necessarily follow the community input they receive. I'm not saying this was a perfect admin by any means, but the community was willing to follow his leadership, and with MOS that's saying a lot. You also have to consider his role in the food chain, that is, as contentious areas become more and more likely to fall under "discretionary sanctions", they usually have an admin willing to serve as patron (what some may see as "fiefdoms"). When MOS, which was essentially self-governing, lost this particular admin, who after all did know how to tell the baby from the bathwater, there was nothing with the ability to step into the void, to keep MOS from being destabilized. Throwing it back on AE certainly hasn't worked. —Neotarf (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC) ...Er, on reflection, I don't really expect an answer to that, at least not in this forum, but it seems this discussion is taking place within a larger context of the "discretionary sanctions" that as far as I have been able to find out, were created by Arbcom to deal with specific problems with high traffic articles like Sarah Palin and Barack Obama during election season. Whether applying this to other areas of the Project is mission creep or a creative solution remains yet to be hashed out. —Neotarf (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, once again fellow admins circled wagons and "saved" the admin from last month. And yes it's too early to tell. That'll take at least a year. At a minimum he should have been strongly admonished and yet AC did nothing. And once again AC did nothing in an abusive admin case and again sent the signal that admins can do whatever they want and get away with it--no wonder admin behavior is so atrocious now. What about the victims, what did AC do for them? Diddly squat is what you always do for the victims. PumpkinSky talk 10:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• No The role of a bureaucrat isn't to be the whistleblower on rogue administrators and we don't need a board to line up a firing squad of complainers. In the majority of the roles they have, it is simply to evaluate consensus among the community where they use their rights to promote or desysop someone (among other tasks like renaming, etc). You have no consensus that a bureaucrat has the right to be the decider of whether or not an administrator should be desysopped. You have no consensus from a previous discussion of this kind of forum should exist, considering most requests for desysop proposals are shot down. More importantly, you don't even have consensus against the few administrators you're complaining abou,t otherwise going through ArbCom wouldn't be this difficult (given how clear-cut it is and all!). There's a reason why we have a select few individuals on the Arbitration Committee elected to decide whether someone should be desysopped or not in those cases, because the rest of the community isn't fit for deciding that (and certainly not an open forum where every nutter can chime in). Every editor who ever had a grudge with the admin, who had their article deleted, or who had any minor dispute could end up at a "desysop board" and vote the administrator away. Like I said, we don't need a group of politicians being administrators, and this is going in the wrong direction. We don't need 'candidates' who will only do the simple work so that they never have to come up against an angry group of voters. Really, you need to move on. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's naive and myopic. You need to open your eyes. Just one point as an example: The crats have virtually nothing to do, renames are or will be gone, at most 1 RFA closing a month, an occassional bot flag. That's all.PumpkinSky talk 10:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• No. There's a whole lot of strident rhetoric here, but there has been no demonstration that there is truly a problem in need of solving here. Just a vocal bunch of folks who don't like certain admins' actions and are upset by them. Folks, if you are convinced that an admin is behaving so egregiously improperly that they need to be desysopped, take them to arbcom. (Maybe the reason some of those cases were rejected was since the case for desysopping just wasn't there...) And if you feel and admin's approach to admining shows a disturbing pattern, even though it fails to meet the egregiousness needed for immediate arbcom desysopping, then start an RfC. And then take them to Arbcom if they fail to heed to consensus at the RfC in the future. Any alternative desysopping mechanism that could at all reach acceptance would clearly require demonstrating community consensus to remove an admin's bits, so before creating additional bureaucracy, let's first show there are problem admins who fail to heed community consensus --- not random localized howls of protest on AN or similar -- and then Arbcom is failing or unable to deal with the issue once this is established. Martinp (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh there's plenty of evidence, AC just doesn't want to deal with it. And people are fed up with the ridiculously long times the processes take, that's why they don't file, not that there aren't sufficient cases. So you put in all the time to on RFCs and other bunk and then AC doesn't upload standard wiki rules of admin behavior. Meantime more and more abuse happens. And you wonder why people don't file cases? Get real.PumpkinSky talk 12:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - While this is an interesting idea, and I have sympathy to it, there is one major problem: Bureaucrats were not elected to deysysop problem admins. They have not discussed it with the community during their Rfb's and may not be qualified for, or even desire to do, this type of stressful, controversial and high profile work. I salute PS for a valiant effort at cutting the Gordian Knot, however. Jusdafax 12:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support. It's always mystified me why we distrust crats to this extent. We force them to get a ≥ 90% approval rating, higher than any other role I can think of, including stewards. Then we give them little to do. Desysopping is something they're ideally positioned to manage responsibly. Tony (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• The proposal hasn't been very well specified here, but it seems to be to give some group of bureaucrats to run around desysopping people they don't think should be administrators, in the hope that this will act as some sort of revenge for a block the proposer and a few other people strongly object to. That's a terrible idea. Far better thought out desysopping proposals involving substantial community consultation, safeguards against abuse, and closure by a bureaucrat have failed, and for good reasons. Hut 8.5 14:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct. And this is the wrong place to discuss any proposal anyway. Having Crats as part of that proposal sounds reasonable, but obviously there has to be a lot of checks and balances. Again, not here at WP:BN, as this is off topic for this venue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nebulous proposal to "do something" cannot be supported. If you want to formulate a properly documented process and run it through a proper RFC, by all means. Resolute 23:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose on account of vagueness. Taroaldo ✉ 23:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment, probably in the wrong place: Somewhere above, and I can't find the exact statement now, someone pointed out Worm's proposals for admin reform had not passed community approval. I'm not sure that is correct. The proposal that I saw, and voted on, was not a general proposal with various alternatives as Worm's was, but a very specific proposal with an exact plan for voting that was clearly unworkable. Everyone who voted against it cited the unworkable voting procedure as a reason for their "oppose" vote. Obviously WP knows how to run elections, the arb elections don't seem to be all that unworkable, so perhaps a differently worded proposal - something along the lines of the successful admin reform on the German wiki - would have a different outcome. —Neotarf (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A concrete proposal

I think many of the concerns expressed here – on both sides – are legitimate, so I've put together a concrete desysop/reconfirmation RfA proposal at the village pump. Your input is welcome there. 28bytes (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! PumpkinSky talk 16:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Civility, again?

Admittedly I haven't read all the above discussion, but it appears to me this is another episode of wikidrama brought about by a civility block of an established user who enjoys the support of a substantial number of other users. I have been witnessing episodes of such drama periodically ever since I joined the project some seven years or so ago. It's often said that the definition of insanity is to continue doing what doesn't work over and over expecting a different result, yet wikipedians appear to be addicted to repeating the same wikidramas year after year instead of overhauling the flawed processes that lead to the drama in the first place.

In the case of civility block-related wikidramas, the main problem seems to be that some otherwise highly valued users are either unable to abide by WP:CIV or worse, are prepared to deliberately taunt opponents knowing that the level of community support they enjoy protects them from effective sanction. This in turn leads to another group of users becoming deeply aggrieved either at the offender or his supporters, or else at a system that permits such abuses. But either way, the end result is a substantial group of alienated users.

The core of the problem, then, relates to the community's uncertainty about how to deal with the uncivil but otherwise valued editor, and that the first thing that needs to be done is to recognize that it is this problem that needs to be addressed, not something else (like "rogue admins" or "bad arbcom").

Now, I don't pretend to have a comprehensive solution ready to hand, but I do think we could start by recognizing a couple of basic principles which might serve as a guide to such a solution:

• Firstly, it's clear that many users feel breaches of WP:CIV are a minor issue that should not attract harsh sanctions, at least against useful editors.
• Secondly, it is equally clear that failing to take any action for incivility is likely to leave another group of users feeling similarly aggrieved and resentful.

I would therefore suggest that we set in place some sort of process for dealing with incivility on the part of otherwise valued users. Firstly, I think we should set a limit on the kind of sanction that can be imposed in such circumstances. The sanction should be substantial enough to be a deterrent to the offender and to satisfy the offended, but not so substantial that it triggers the kind of wikidrama seen above. I would suggest a week-long block as a maximum penalty. Hand-in-hand with that should be a dropping of the notion that a long block log necessarily justifies further harsh sanctions. Also, there would need to be some sort of process set in place for a review of such incivility blocks, in order to avoid the kind of prolonged acrimony that such blocks often trigger. It would take a while to sort out the details of any such process of course, but surely it would be preferable to having to revisit this same drama time after time. Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)