Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Greetings Bureaucrats and stalwarts of this board. I apologize if my question is misplaced and understand if someone reverts or moves it. I do know if this board will indulge my question; and some answer, I'll trust it more than if I'd spent a month trying to research an answer myself, maybe longer. I hope for that.

Regarding an account whose name has been changed, like; for example: mine. Is it at all possible to use the originally named account as a valid alternate of the newly named account? If not prohibited, is it just a bad idea in itself? Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

When an account is renamed, the old account name is freed up. That means it is technically possible for anyone, including you, to register it again and use it. It will, however, look and behave exactly as a new account with no link to the old account. In some cases the renaming Bureaucrat will have recreated and blocked the old account to stop this happening. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

For example, in May 2013 I was renamed from User:Salvidrim to User:Salvidrim!. I have then re-registered the former name and keep it in a closet with my other doppelgangers. It is unused, but there would be no problem if I was to use it as a legitimate alternate account since the disclosure is self-evident; in fact, I may just do so if/when editing from a public computer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• I used to be User:Pharmboy until 2008 when I changed to my real name, a few years later I just logged back into it with my old password (I think now you have to reregister), so I use Pharmboy (and User:Farmer Brown) as alt account on my phone, travel, etc. I do redirect those talk pages to my own, and put a note on all user pages saying they belong to me, so no one can say I'm socking, as the names are not similar or obviously connected. I even have "(alt of Dennis Brown)" in my sig for Farmer Brown. Dennis 2¢ 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No concerns with this plan. –xeno^talk 14:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Salvidrim! When processing WP:PERM requests I've always suggested to people wanting to created second account to create them from their main one, so as to have a solid log entry; obviously you can't do that after the fact, so otherwise establishing positive confirmation between them by an edit log is second recommendation (e.g. have you main account create the redirect from the new account). Having the alternate accounts is fine, the point is to make it clear to anyone that the editor behind them is the same. There are also multiple templates etc you can use after the redirect for example on one of my alt accounts — xaosflux ^Talk 14:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• What a sight to behold! I am humbled by the insight amassed before me. This information is beyond helpful, it is in all honesty, therapeutic. My wiki-soul was torn by what felt, in small measure, like I assume it feels to abandon a "first-love", or to be faced with choosing a "good son". I was not "under a cloud", or seeking nefarious gain; just wanting to edit using my real name. But my conscious hasn't known wiki-peace since passing the point of no return, and I did not anticipate any-such-thing when weighing the pros and cons. I don't believe I'm the only one who ever crossed the name-change bridge only to learn that the grass was not greener at all. I am inclined to believe that anyone contemplating a name change would be glad to know of this option, and hope this very thread goes on to help as many more people as possible – just as it is helpful to me. I appreciate in advance any comments that may yet be shared, and can not give proper thanks to those who already commented. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

I apologize for not leaving a message about this earlier as I was juggling many things outside of Wikipedia and it slipped my mind. Anyways, in the hopes of not relying on Jimbo's availability to appoint the electoral commissioners, this year's RfC will have an experienced user close the discussion if the selection of the 3 candidates is quite clear. In the event that it is not, it's hoped that one or more bureaucrats would be able to close the discussion. I'm sorry if it seems presumptuous and if it's too much to ask or if it's too short of a notice, I'm sure we can instead ask 3 uninvolved users to jointly close the discussion. However, if any 'crat would be willing to assist if needed, it would be most appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mike V • Talk 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 18:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) has been inactive for one year. Per policy, he should be procedurally desysopped. Thanks, --Biblioworm 04:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, but the proper notices have to be left, and as AD is a crat too, those rights have to be removed by a (non-enwiki) steward. --Rschen7754 05:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And it isn't even a full year yet ... at time of writing, that won't happen for another couple of hours. Let MadmanBot handle it.Graham87 08:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've notified AD of this discussion on his talk page. Graham87 08:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I know Anonymous Dissident off-wiki and will contact him accordingly; no rush to desysop or de-bureaucrat is required. Acalamari 09:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What's the rush? He'll be included in the normal run that would get desysopped at the beginning of December, including the notices required by policy. Courcelles 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend to give the appearance of rushing. I just noticed that he had been inactive for about a year, and I was going to go offline shortly, so I thought I'd just post here while I was at it. --Biblioworm 16:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about stuff like that, it's what we have bots for. Dennis - 2¢ 16:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Veinor (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Stephen Bain (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Rhobite (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Acetic Acid (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Makemi (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 08:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yes, thank you to all of them for their service and thank you to you, Graham87, for your work in making these reports and updating the relevant pages. Acalamari 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Acalamari! I've finally gotten to update them. Graham87 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone rename (this blocked user) please and then redact the name out of this comment. Thank you. This is sock who is currently following user Sjö (yesterday, he was following me).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Also (this), (this), and (this one) as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please contact the oversight list or the Stewards mailing list for this. –xeno^talk 12:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• This whole unification of names thing hasn't been a plus for admin trying to quickly solve simple, everyday problems. Dennis - 2¢ 13:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a consequence of unification, though: names like that should always be oversighted, which is a better tool for the job than a forced rename. 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The accounts have now been oversighted. PhilKnight (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Toddst1 (talk · contribs) has blocked himself and declared that he is retired. Since he has blocked himself, so I think we can remove his sysop rights. There is no need to keep sysop rights of a blocked user. Thanks! Jim Carter 16:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• We don't make it up as we go along. There is an Arb case pending on this. I don't think the Crats are going to take it upon themselves to desysop someone where they have no authority to do so. They can't (and won't) desysop someone just because it seems logical, policy is very strict on this. Dennis - 2¢ 16:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis is correct: we would need a request from either ArbCom or Toddst1 himself. 28bytes (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above. We can't do anything at the moment. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This will be dealt with automatically in due course according to the motion the Arbitration Committee adopted. However, in fairness to Jim Cartar, he may well not have been aware that the Committee already addressed the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had it up to here with this place! That said, can someone please help the user in this UTRS ticket vanish? Please do not vanish my account over this humor.--v/r - TP 18:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Has this been actioned? I'm not sure that any bureaucrats have UTRS access, perhaps you could email me the details? –xeno^talk 18:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume some have seen Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. I am cautiously supportive, depending on the details, of course, but not interested in debating if it is an absolute non-starter. It isn't yet ready for prime time, so I am not looking for an up or down reaction at this time, but if it is a waste of time to even consider, it would be useful to know. One important aspect not yet worked out is whether it would be a committee as a whole; I see that as a non-starter, because that would effectively mean that 'crats would be coerced into a function they didn't sign up for, so I cannot imagine supporting a proposal unless 'crats can opt out of the role.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust any 'crat who opted in, actually. The bureaucrats are well aware that they haven't been appointed for this role. They weren't questioned on this topic during their RfBs (if they were even appointed after the modern version of the RfB process existed). Bureaucrats have never had any sort of user-conduct-dispute resolution role—certainly nothing with this type of scope and impact, where they would be asked to usurp the role of the ArbCom. (A body which, incidentally, was elected by the community, to fulfill exactly the proposed purpose, whose members were subject to scrutiny on precisely this responsibility, and who must be re-elected regularly if they wish to continue to exercise this type of authority.)

In the context of adminship, the community relies on 'crats to be "moist robots". We expect and demand decisions on straight vote counts, and give them the authority to halt or suspend the process only when it goes seriously and conspicuously off the rails: SNOW closures, egregious abuses by participants, and so forth. Bureaucrats are generally trusted and considered uncontroversial because they take a hands-off approach, and because when faced with a difficult decision they don't have to make a call. They can punt, and say that a close-to-passing candidate should come back in three months, and the community is fine with that—a strategy that likely wouldn't sit well in a request for desysopping process.

While WP:CDARFC is now four years past, many of the comments I made about that failed proposal are applicable today. Each new generation of process wonks seems to reinvent the same square wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You raise some very good points, which coincidently undercut some of my recent comments. Learning isn't so bad. We do have a need for someone to come in an make the call in some of these situations, but I see your point that having Crats do is problematic. Now creating SuperAdmin, maybe that's the answer ;) Dennis - 2¢ 16:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think the reverse judgement is that hard. If a request for de-sysop is nominally at 70% then I doubt if the community would have much concern if some votes were discounted as meatpuppetry, canvassing or what-not and took the majority from 65% to 70% or vice versa. Anyone who is anywhere near the range to de-sysop in a straight consensus should be asking themselves serious questions, and if they weren't the type to hand their bit in under these circumstances, they would likely fare worse in the first place. I think a close failure to de-sysop would be a very clear message "come back with more convincing evidence and it will happen (becasue you will get the !votes)" and that would either seal the fate of a merely "quite bad" admin, or cause them to pull their socks up. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

I agree with Rich. The bureaucrat's job is a little more than moist robotics, @TenOfAllTrades. After checking for a rule of thumb 2/3-3/4 support level -- which is not a strict vote count, because invalid opinions are discounted, circumstances may be taken into account, vis-a-vis canvassing, etc., as Rich says -- the bureaucrat needs to actually do a Wiki policy, IAR gut check on the action. Some have taken this as an opportunity to convene a "crat chat," others have occasionally deviated from the community's expectation in some way, with mixed results. What it comes down to is executing the promotion is sometimes controversial and sometimes not, and the bureaucrat is the buck-stops-here person for making sure all the ducks are in a row. It's certainly no worse than closing an AFD or determining there to be consensus for a community ban, in fact quite a bit easier than those. The same seems to apply for a deadminship RFC. Andrevan@ 11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC took place nearly five years ago. It was a monumental work, and one of the best prepared RfC I have ever seen, and (technically) it failed on only a narrow margin. Consensus can change. Many things and situations on Wikipedia can and do change. Active participants in meta discussions are a transient pool of people, and those who do stick around can also change their opinions.

There is no need for anyone to be cautious about participating in the Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board, it's only a call for opinion on just one possible facet of CDA and whatever its result may be it will only be used as background to formulating and proposing a solution to something which (at least in my IMO) has become significantly more acute for several reasons that perhaps were not quite so evident back in 2010. That said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Five Problems with a Single Solution (for some reason tagged as defunct) is more pertinent today than it ever was (at least most parts of it). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The global group was created and all users have been added. What would the process be for removing the now unnecessary local user group for OTRS permissions members? Rjd0060 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The same as making it:

1. Update abuse filters and test
2. Have admins depopulate the group
3. Put in a software request.

• — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

On that note, I did create Special:AbuseFilter/642 to monitor for the global group. It is the same as the already working filter for the local group, but currently set to log only. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Administrators, not bureaucrats, have the ability to add/remove OTRS-member. I'd think just removing the local permission as superfluous would be fine, unless someone can think of a reason to have it duplicated (perhaps the ability to use the local listuser function to find "OTRS-member"s?). –xeno^talk 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary, we have Special:GlobalUsers/OTRS-member. The OTRS group may be documented at Wikipedia:Global rights policy. As a note, I've reorganized WP:UAL to better differentiate local and global rights. Cenarium (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have filed similar thread at WP:OTRS noticeboard days ago. — Revi 12:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done except for three users who aren't part of the global group yet: Andrewman327, FreeRangeFrog, and The Herald. Legoktm (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the new global group for any OTRS queue? or just permissions/photosubmissions? --Rschen7754 05:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754, the group is for users with access to permissions and/or photosubmissions queues. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: did the bug that made the filters not work mentioned on the OTRS noticeboard get resolved and #1 above was tested successfully? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to all - (legoktm, Xaosflux, etc.) - I have created the remaining to-do list of sorts. Please see User:Rjd0060/globalOTRS. It should answer some questions relating to the abuse filter as well. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Master Jay (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) --Jay(Talk) 01:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the most verbose requests for resysop we've seen. This looks fine after the customary hold period. –xeno^talk 01:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This made me smile. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. TL;DR. No concerns I can see. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Maxim_(talk) 02:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I request to have my sysop flag reinstated. After a leave of absence, i'm returning from semi-retirement. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine after the customary hold period. –xeno^talk 14:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done permissions restored, welcome back –xeno^talk 19:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It has become abundantly clear that either ArbCom or I have a quite different idea of what the community wants and expects. If it's ArbCom that has the views of the community so wrong (or don't care that they don't represent the community's views) then I want no part of the wikipedia governance system - even at the lowest admin level. If, on the other hand, I'm so out of touch with the community I'm not sure I want to continuing working in such an environment. Dpmuk (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Your admin rights have been removed. Thank you for your service as an administrator; your work is appreciated. Best. Acalamari 01:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Could you remove my edit filter manager permission as well please - there's no obvious place to request such a removal so here seems as good a place as any given the background is already here. Dpmuk (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- GB fan 02:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And thanks again for the quick response. Dpmuk (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking for an LGBT (especially trans) knowledgeable and friendly 'crat to assist another user who's come to me with some concerns off-wiki. I did what I could (mostly cleaning up outing attempts) but I don't feel comfortable advising them on areas of policy (like right to vanish and self-outing) that I'm not experienced with. If anyone could assist, I'll pass along your username to this user. Thanks!! ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 21:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Crazytales, I am somewhat knowledgeable about LGBT matters and I am definitely regarded as friendly; if I can help - assuming no one else has helped but hasn't commented here - please do let me know and I'll see what I can do. Acalamari 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ta acalamari i have passed your username on to the user, she will probably contact you offwiki. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 05:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am quite knowledgeable of the realm of LGBT (mostly the L and the T, though) and I'm more than friendly. I am the least active bureaucrat we have, but if there's anything I can do, let me know. I can be e-mailed via my userpage. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs here (or BAG), but Commons fair use upload bot (usurped) (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) is a bot of Dcoetzee, who is WMF-Banned and ArbCom-blocked. (see block log.) Should this bot's flag removed? (This bot is locked, too) Bot is usurped by Fæ on meta. — Revi 11:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is  Done. Thank you, –xeno^talk 11:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have usurped the bot globally, not just on meta, and notified Arbcom. Consequently this account has nothing to do with Dcoetzee any more. I am in the process of re-establishing the bot's operation on WMF labs. Note, the bot itself has a trouble free history of operation, the office action on Dcoetzee is an entirely separate matter. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant "Request is handled on meta". Also, I requested the removal of old account which is occupied by Dcoetzee, as it cannot contribute anymore. — Revi 12:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. To avoid doubt, Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is the account we hope to get running again soon. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added the usurped account to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots; it's not on the main list of Wikipedians by number of edits at the moment, but may be in the future if the list is extended beyond the top 10,000. Graham87 13:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

For this month's round of procedural removal of permissions for inactivity, I didn't notice the bot sent the pending suspension warnings on the 14th of the month and then sent the imminent suspension warnings too early, and removed permissions 9 days too early.

I don't think it's really worthwhile to restore them and remove them again in 9 days, but if someone feels strongly about it I could do that. This error doesn't change the deadline for the users to request restoration via the usual means. –xeno^talk 14:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think temporarily re-sysopping now then re-desysopping a week from now is needed. I think noting it here is sufficient. If any of the affected editors want their rights back, there shouldn't be any problem restoring them on request. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thirded, seems fine. Andrevan@ 02:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed Anonymous Dissident on that list, now he only holds the crat permission. Has this happened before? Probably has no impact but I thought it worth bringing up. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Once upon a time I contemplated being a non-admin bureaucrat. I don't think anyone has done it for any serious length of time. –xeno^talk 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this happened with Taxman as well earlier this year. Widr (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it also happened with Cecropia. Per the above-linked discussion, a bureaucrat needs to ask a steward to remove AD's 'crat bit. Graham87 09:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Xeno already did, the stewards are just holding it for the "proper" date. Courcelles 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Could a kind 'crat please remove my administrator bit? Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 18:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for your service. Let me know if you want any of your pre-admin flags restored. –xeno^talk 19:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am going through a ton of stress/health issues right now (had my wallet stolen with my apartment deposit money, car payment, insurance and all my credit cards $2000+ total which is totally devastating) and it's in my best interest to take a break from the tools while I figure all this shit going on IRL. I did promise when I asked for resysopping last time I won't ask for the removal of my tools again unless it's a permanent one, but please understand what I am going through right now and figure out why I'm asking the removal of my tools before questioning my judgement here. I do want them back, and will ask for them back when I get my life straightened out again, but not when I'm stressed out, about to blow any minute. Thanks Secret account 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC) @Secret: I'm sorry life has thrown you such a curveball, and I can understand why you'd want to take a break. I do have a couple questions for you though, with regard to any future bit restoration: Do you plan to abide by the terms you agreed to here? Specifically, those are: at least six months must pass between desysopping and resysopping, and after those six months, you then either (A) convince a supermajority of the editors listed at User:Secret/recall that you should regain your mop or (B) pass another RfA. Is there a reason you don't want to do what you said at the bottom of this thread that you'd do when you got your bits back last time, and just use a wikibreak enforcer? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I completely forgot about the recall agreement, as I was planning to return back within 6 months, and there is no way in hell I'm gonna go through the stress of another RFA that I know I won't pass. I'll use a wikibreak enforcer and withdraw this request. If an admin can add a wikibreak enforcer until January 1st as I have no idea how to add one to my mono book I'll really appreciate it. Secret account 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC) {{resolved|Request withdrawn. –xenotalk 18:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)}} Secret, if you want a complete break, there are admins who will consider blocking you on request. I'm one of them. If you're interested, please read my conditions here carefully, then e-mail me your request or put it on my talkpage if you prefer. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC). I've added the wikbreak enforcer to User:Secret/monobook.js, expiring 00:00:01 on 1 Jan 2015. Secret, good luck with everything, and see you in a few weeks. This might prevent you from emailing Bish thru WP email; I did this before seeing Bish's note. But if it works I guess you don't really need a self-requested block. Someone over-rule me if this seems a mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I won't do that. I do have a comment, it's winging towards you by e-mail. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC). Let me guess: I did it wrong. Again. If I've made yet another admin mistake showing that Bish is technologically superior to me, I may very well request a desysop for myself. You young whippersnappers and your fancy computers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Wrong? I have no idea. I haven't looked. [Wings flapping frantically.] It should be reaching you round about … now! Bishonen's new-fangled carrier pigeon, 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Making my retirement official, please desysop me now. Also make my wikibreak enforcer indefinite. I want nothing to do with this site anymore. Secret account 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC) @Secret: I recommend you take a few days (read: at least 5 days) to think about this, chew it over a few times, and evaluate whether you are 100% won't-ever-change-my-mind sure this is what you want to do. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC) I am positive, I'm too freaked out over what recently happened as it never happened to me before in all my years in this project, but I heard horror stories about how it happened to other people, how the foundation got involved etc. This started when my wallet got stolen, my stress level went very high and I needed a wikibreak so I asked for the removal for the tools. I reconsidered it and backed off my request after Fluffernutter's comment because it was a temporary removal of the tools that was gonna last a few weeks. But then a certain IP commented here, it was ignored and reverted, and may seem like nothing major, but in actually was major harassment by a certain user in which I am contacting the foundation and there is no way in hell I'm going back to the project after this. Email me for further information. It's nothing to do with my stress level, but it involves my personal safety and I want absolutely nothing to do with the project anymore. If I ever decide to come back, it will be via a clean start, and after sufficient time passes. Secret account 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC) After getting several emails, I need to think about this more, so close it for now. Secret account 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

MikeLynch (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) I wish to request removal of my sysop tools temporarily as I do not expect to be editing for a year or so.

Regards, MikeLynch (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for your service. Please take note of the WP:RESYSOP guidelines, particularly those concerning lengthy inactivity. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I've not been active on the English Wikipedia quite some time, amassing the sum total of three minor edits this year. I don't envisage myself being active in the near future, and I do get the occasional talkpage message asking me to intervene in a dispute or act in another administrative capacity, which given my lack of knowledge of current policy would be an extremely unwise thing to do. Time to remove the admin flag. If I do decide to become more active in the future, I'll verse myself in policy and get back to editing before considering requesting the flag back, subject to meeting whatever resysopping policy is in force at that time. Whilst there has been thunder and lightning here and the Réal Madrid FIFA match has had to be moved to Marrakech due to flooding, there is no particular cloud in my Wikipedia life. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for your service. –xeno^talk 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can a 'crat please mark the first 3 stale requests as {{not done}}, the bot will not archive a request without a 'crats endorsement. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mlpearc (open channel) 00:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I just had a user outright impersonate me by registering a nickname I've been using for a little over a week now, and it was obviously in bad faith, as when I brought it up to a sysop, they went ahead and Indef blocked the username for impersonation. In light of the impersonation I have filed as requested by the sysop to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations. My question was if the particular block for the username due to impersonation would have any effect or prevention upon my usurping the name for myself. I have only recently learned it was possible to rename my account, and I was trying to give it due consideration prior to the impersonator. Melody Concerto^talk 02:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is precedent for usurping abusively registered names. The block won't preclude it. –xeno^talk 02:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Will my request be processed normally then? The page says there's a few issues with the request, but I'm making the request due to the impersonation. Melody Concerto^talk 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep!  Done by Snowolf. 28bytes (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There are some cases on said page that have been left open for over a week, including my own. Would a bureaucrat please deal with them as soon as possible? Theponderism (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Since Sept 15 2014, 'crats no longer can usurp account. Only Stewards can usurp account. — Revi 09:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not strictly true; if an account to be usurped is a global account it can be usurped via the global rename facility. That said, Theponderism I don't think in this case enwiki bureaucrats are best placed to handle your request. Try no:WP:USURP or m:SRUC. –xeno^talk 12:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No idea who could help so I'm asking here; I have a bunch of doppelgangers but somehow I forgot to take ownership of Benoit Landry (talk · contribs), and it has now been used to impersonate me. I want this account name. Can you forcefully rename it to some random string (like a vanished user) and allow me to recreate the account as mine? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it's necessary to prove I am in fact Benoit Landry, let me know. I have identified to the Foundation already. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, you can create the acccount now. –xeno^talk 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Per this motion of the committee, please remove the administrator permissions of Secret (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The removal is "under a cloud" and the rights are not to be restored without a fresh RFA. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done with regret. Acalamari 20:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As a result of this arbitration case the Committee has resolved to desysop DangerousPanda (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log), he may regain the rights via a successful RfA. Thank you for your assistance, please action as required. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bots with administrative rights, 7SeriesBOT (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) will need to have its administrator permissions removed, which all of its tasks involved the use of. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done both and will leave a note on DangerousPanda's talk page in a moment. Acalamari 12:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

While User:TorNodeBot has done well in the past, lately he has not found gaps in the TorBlock service. There are two possible technical reasons for this (I'll spare the technical babble) but I simply don't have the time to analyze it right now. As far as I can tell, tor editing has been well-sealed recently, and so I'd like to deactivate this admin bot's privileges until such time as it becomes evident that his tasks are needed again. I expect that it will be trivial to re-enable his admin rights if the situation arises where it is evident he is needed again, but I don't want to leave an admin account open that I do not regularly log into. So I'm asking that someone remove the admin bit from the User:TorNodeBot account, at least for the time being, since his utility has ceased. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TorNodeBot for your essential hard work :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this also an inactive admin? Last edit 12:01, 16 August 2012, Last log 14:24, 26 July 2012, Logged in at 8 January 2014, also one year ago.--GZWDer (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Useight is still active, although not under that account. These days they edit using User:Useight's Public Sock. 28bytes (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Misza13 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Dear Bureaucrats, I have been procedurally desysopped due to inactivity. While I am not actively editing Wikipedia (which may or may not change in the near future), I would like to regain and retain my admin bit. Thank you & Best Regards, —Миша13 08:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, sort of. I see no problem with your request. If no other crat has a problem, one of us will return your bit after 24 hours has elapsed from now. Good to have you, I remember your excellent contributions. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No concerns. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been 24 hours and no concerns have been raised so  Done. Welcome back, Misza13. Acalamari 11:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Good to see old friends still active. —Миша13 11:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Alas, I have not been particularly active on Wikipedia for several years, and my last admin action dates back to March 2012. While I'm still fairly confident that my account remains secure, there's really no point in keeping an inactive admin around. Per WP:ADMIN and, in particular, WP:INACTIVITY, I would therefore like to voluntarily request the removal of my admin rights, at least until such time as I might choose to reapply for them again. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remove bot flag from the following bots:

• MiszaBot I (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• MiszaBot II (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• MiszaBot III (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Archival of pages was the only purpose of these and I'm not returning to this business anytime soon. Thank you. —Миша13 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been very inactive for quite a while now, mostly due to real life commitments. Unfortunately, I do not anticipate that it is very likely that I will become much more active in the foreseeable future. Consequently, I would like to resign my administrator bit on the English Wikipedia. If +sysop is required for access to +abusefilter, please also remove that permission from my account as well.

I do not know the general opinion on granting oneself user rights prior to resigning the admin bit, so if the bureaucrat handling this could give my user account +rollback, I would be most grateful. I am honored to have had the opportunity to have served with you on this project, and I hope that at some point circumstances allow me to contribute here actively once again.

Kind regards,

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your long service, J.delanoy; I recall us interacting years ago and I hope you will be able to pick up the tools again one day. Best. Acalamari 03:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a bureaucrat can help or not, but perhaps you can. I have an SUL and I am an ACC tool user, but now when I try to login to the tool it gives me an error message saying I need a unified login (I suppose there was some software change making this necessary). Again, I have an SUL, but there are some unattached accounts that may be causing the system confusion. This is a recent phenomenon because I have been using the ACC tool successfully for a couple of years now. I know there is an SUL finalisation project that when complete will usurp the unattached accounts and add them to my SUL. But that project has been thinking they were ready to pull the trigger for a couple of years now, and I don't want to wait another couple of years before I use the ACC tool again. In fact, if I don't use it again in less than two weeks, I'll not be able to (the tool has a 45 day rule). Can a bureaucrat help finalize my SUL (apart from the global project)? Can a steward? Anybody?  ● Thane — 07:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's now a steward task, and the main request page is m:SRUC. Looking at Special:CentralAuth/Thane, there's 9 accounts you don't own. 5 of them have no edits, so I think we can just move those out of the way... the tricky part will be handling the 4 that do have edits. --Rschen7754 07:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and ask a steward, or are you currently handling the 5 with no edits?  ● Thane — 07:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I would go ahead and ask on Meta; while I could do it myself, to be honest I'm not 100% sure how it's handled nowadays... and I don't want to screw something up. --Rschen7754 07:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks.  ● Thane — 07:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Lee Daniel Crocker (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) I've been editing here and there, but I often forget to log on. Can you please restore my status as admin/sysop/whatever you call it these days? (When I wrote the software it was "God", but that was a long time ago...) --LDC (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was purely a procedural desysop for inactivity, so I or another 'crat should be able to re-flag you once the now-standard 24-hour hold period is up. Welcome back! 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No concerns. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done welcome back –xeno^talk 13:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped as inactive:

• Roozbeh (talk · contribs · logs)
• Killervogel5 (talk · contribs · logs)
• MatthewUND (talk · contribs · logs)
• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs · logs)
• RG2 (talk · contribs · logs)

Best, Mike V • Talk 04:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Now done. Thanks to all for their years of service, it's a shame to see them go. Worm^TT(talk) 09:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Neelix (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) abruptly retired[4] after some concerns regarding a block were expressed[5] by Carrite. He was being attacked offsite and trolled. Still, it seems to make sense to pull the bit back until/if he returns and can address what was going on. I think this falls in "under a cloud" but without any details. I have no objection to restoring the bit if he requested it and there is nothing nefarious about his block/retirement and it wasn't done to escape scrutiny. --DHeyward (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally, retirement is no reason to pull sysop rights, unless there is a reasonable belief that the account is compromised. If the retirement is indeed permanent, the rights will be removed after a year, per normal inactivity. Worm^TT(talk) 10:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree (non-crat comment). Crats remove the bit on self-request, for inactivity and at the request of Arbcom. Crats do not remove the bit because someone thinks that an admin should explain their actions before being allowed to act as an admin again - that's Arbcom territory, but Arbcom won't be interested in this. Clouds only start forming if there is a self-request to remove the bit, so that's not the case here either. Bencherlite^Talk 10:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. At this point it would be a solution in search of a problem. I could see an interpretation of retirement as a self-request to give up the bit and make it just as easy to request a restore. That's a low bar but it still has a 'crat making a decision to restore the bit. The stress of the drama created from controversial calls seems to trigger breaks and retirements. To the extent that it also avoids scrutiny is hard gauge. You can close this. --DHeyward (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done self-closed as not regular practice. --DHeyward (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm far to busy off-wiki, and would like to be voluntarily desysopped for a while, as suggested by SarekOfVulcan, after I posted a request on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Too_busy_for_sysop_work. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy your break! 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Barnstars, kitteh, and blinky things go on my talk page, please. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Am retiring account. Password has been scrambled.

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

Many thanks. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for your service. Best. Acalamari 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I may come back eventually and pick it back up, but I need to not have the admin bit right now. Please remove it. Thank you. Dennis - 2¢ 13:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. I hope you'll be back. Acalamari 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a good break if that's what's needed. Hope you'll return at some point. You'll be sorely missed in the meantime. KTC (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Really sorry to hear this - Dennis, as creator of WP:WER and someone who motivated me to go from a long term critic to a serious collaborator, you will be sorely missed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RG2 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log): I'm often not logged in these days, but I hadn't made an edit with this account for about a year and went inactive. Requesting resysop. Thanks! -- RG² 01:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been inactive for some time, and I think that until I am able to return it would be better for this account not to be marked as an administrator. Please remove the administrator bit from this account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service; I hope you'll return at some point. Best. Acalamari 02:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A friend of mine signed up with a user name which xe never used, and now regrets hogging that name. I told xem that we don't usually worry about this, but promised to find out whether there is a way to free this name so that others can create an account using it, as if it had never been claimed in the first place. I presume this would need bureaucrat attention, which is why I'm posting the question here. — Sebastian 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:LEAVE? — Revi 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That does contain changing the username; would it also free it? It feels a bit like overkill, though; most of that process wouldn't be neccessary. BTW, the name is Spaghettitoes (talk · contribs), which doesn't sound like one needs to worry about hogging it, but the user feels xe stole it from http://spaghetti-toes.tumblr.com. — Sebastian 03:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (amended 03:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) )

WP:RENAME. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved Thanks! That answers my question. — Sebastian 06:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked last night on my talk page[6] and today at ANI,[7] but the former has gone unnoticed and another editor deleted the latter.[8]

Could someone please close this discussion? [9]

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, that appears to be a purely administrative (rather than bureaucratic) matter. –xeno^talk 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, but could you suggest where to take it? As I said, I've tried to flag an administrator twice now. Lightbreather (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC or an alternate soluton, since it's clear to anyone with two ounces of judgement that there is no consensus for an IBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the free time to contribute much to WP at the moment, and am also feeling quite disillusioned about the project right now for a variety of reasons. I may ask for it back in the future when I have the time and when this project starts encouraging me more, but please remove my admin flag for the time being. Thanks, StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your time and effort and I do hope you return. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

An account was renamed a couple of hours ago, but a quick glance at their contributions would have shown that the account was created by a known serial sockpuppeteer. Even without noticing the sockpuppetry, though, it's obvious that the account was up to no good and that it had already been indeffed several hours before the rename. I have seen several instances where this guy's socks have been to CHU/S in the past, as well.

I guess my question is this: Aren't there red flags that bureaucrats should be looking for before pressing the rename button? My intention is not to criticize any particular crat, but I'm just surprised that so much (multiple trivial edits to gain autoconfirmed status, re-upload of an attack image, and vandalism of a CU's talk page and the sockpuppeteer's SPI) could go without notice. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

These days most renames are performed from Meta (by global renamer's centralauth-rename) and I cannot check user is blocked or not on meta's GlobalRenameUser special page. (Of course it is good idea to check centralauth and contribs page before performing rename.) — Revi 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, not to put too fine a point on it but renames are now handled by global renamers (some who are local bureaucrats, others who are not) and are subject to the m:Global rename policy as well as local policies and guidelines. (Ping @Maxim: to ensure they are aware of this discussion.) As far as the question, typically there will be some basic checks but sometimes renamers simply accept the bot's assertion of "No problems found" and process right from the page. –xeno^talk 18:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That user tried an end-around, obviously trying to get someone to process the change and not notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is good. As arguably the holder of the "most power" (from a technical perspective) outside of WMF / stewards, it's best if bureaucrats are perceived as boringly non-controversial worker bees. Their role for renames should be to simply evaluate the names, not go digging for dirt. It doesn't actually matter what an indeff'd account name is, does it? NE Ent 18:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO, yes it does matter. I think the bureaucrats have a duty to do any due diligence. Otherwise why do we need this user group of incorruptibles? In a much lower level of the Wikipedia pecking order, as a pure example only, it's by checking on the work of New Page Patrollers or AfD reviewers that when I come across a poor patrol or review I discover socks, POV pushers, and spammers. By your reckoning, NE Ent, instead of digging for dirt, as an admin I should just let it go? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should exercise this oversight and discretion where appropriate as in this case, although I don't think we should penalize anyone for a simple mistake. However since the global rename policy this is no longer within the purview of enwiki, so perhaps we had best have this conversation in the appropriate. It's possible that the policy doesn't include this, although I believe the en wiki policy probably does encompass refusing to rename a sockpuppeteer. If the policy needs to be clarified or improved, that can't be done here. Andrevan@ 08:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that's correct - for example, last year the en-wiki sockpuppeteer User:Pass a Method was globally renamed as User:North Atlanticist Usonian. But I agree there's nothing we can do here in relation to global renaming rules. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Waltpohl (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Jcw69 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Mahanga (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Phils (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this here, Graham87, and thank you to all four admins for their respective services. Acalamari 10:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Graham87:@Acalamari: Are we sure that the second notifications were sent for these four users. It's completely undocumented at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2015. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Armbrust and Acalamari: I for one didn't get this notification, for some reason; it doesn't seem like they were, but I don't think that's a major issue; if they really want their user rights back, they can ask for them. Graham87 10:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't receive either notification here. At any rate, as Graham87 has said, I don't think it's a big deal, at least on this occasion (it shouldn't become a regular habit). The notices on their talk pages are clear enough as is. Acalamari 18:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Tool request

I would like to request my reinstatement as an administrator. My account has not been compromised. waltpohl (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Walt Pohl (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

They usually wait 24 hours to make sure there are no issues. — Ched :  ?  11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I see no issues here. If no-one objects, the next crat on in 24hrs time will happily return your tools. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Walt Pohl (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller that there is no cause for concern here. Pakaran 03:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a former admin returning to Wikipedia after a long break, during which my account was procedurally desysopped, so I would like to request reinstatement of the tools. Thanks! --Nine Tail Fox (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Apologies, somehow became logged out during that edit so adding this note to properly attribute. Nine Tail Fox\^talk 18:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You were procedurally desysopped on 1 November 2013, so there have not been 2 years of inactivity after that date. As such, I see no cause for concern with restoration after the standard 24 hour hold mentioned above. Pakaran 03:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. Pakaran 22:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pakaran: Thankyou! Appreciated. Nine Tail Fox\^talk 11:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone mark this as {{notdone}} so the bot can archive. Thanx :) Mlpearc (open channel) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done By Tiptoety Mlpearc (open channel) 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

May I request that my sysop flag be removed (under a cloud) per this? The Arbcom has been informed of my request, and the request in return has been acknowledged in personal capacity by two members. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 02:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Wifione ^Message 02:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

...please go ahead and remove my tools. I've retired. I'd like it noted that I am doing this of my own free will without any controversies and am under no clouds. Just in case I decide to return in a year or two.--v/r - TP 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for your service. –xeno^talk 00:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Vejvančický (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) I've voluntarily resigned as an administrator in August 2014, in protest against the attitude Wikipedia showed toward problematic behavior of another administrator, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_30#Desysop_request_2. My trust to the mechanisms of the project to defend itself against such a behavior has been reinstated, and I would like to ask the bureaucrats to restore the user right. I understand that my request might be viewed as controversial by others, and I will reconsider my request if any significant opposition will appear. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about this "resigning in protest", it was still a unilateral decision by the admin. It was not forced by any official proceedings and there were no clouds in the sky above Vejvančický. The request should be granted. Kraxler (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Vejvančický, I am very pleased to see this request and will be happy to welcome you back to the admin corps once the requisite 24-hour waiting period is up. 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I also recommend this request be granted after the customary waiting period. As the resignation was not to avoid scrutiny, there is nothing that I see that would preclude resysoping here. Maxim_(talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please give this Wikimedia Foundation bot it's bot flag. It is making countless edits to his user sub page which is cluttering this. It is a Wikimedia Foundation bot and does not need BAG approval as it is making all it's edit in it's user subpage. Thanks! Jim Carter 12:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually per this all bots need to be approved. There's no exemption listed here. However, if it's really a Wikipedia Foundation bot, then those in the know will know about it and likely approve it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Link: "In addition, any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." - In this case, neither approval nor flag is required for it to function. A flag is requested to prevent clogging recent changes. In theory, we're requesting that a bot be flagged as such despite not needed approval to run. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm looking into this, the account is flagged as a bot (and was before it started editing) using a special global group. It isn't using the API... but I'm working with ops to try and figure out why the edits aren't being flagged. Jalexander--WMF 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. It looks like the edits are, correctly, being marked as a bot (as you can see on recent changes when you show bots/user space). It looks like the newbie contributions page (that view is just user space) does not actually distinguish between bot and no bot flag. I'm not sure what the criteria for the newbies page actually is... because the bot is autoconfirmed as well. Jalexander--WMF 19:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please desysop Special:Contributions/Toddst1 for WP:INACTIVITY. (See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1#Motion_.28Toddst1.29). NE Ent 17:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Usually that's done with the others who are inactive on a monthly basis... --Rschen7754 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Emily Litella -- "Never mind!" NE Ent 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Toddst1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Happyme22 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Selket (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• SCEhardt (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Smith03 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

*Admrboltz (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Hope I'm not stepping on anyone's shoes with this report. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Just realized that it isn't actually March yet; I thought it was already March at 22:00 UTC. My bad, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Admrboltz has edited within the last hour, so is no longer inactive. --Rschen7754 22:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Thanks, stricken. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lixxx235: Thanks for the report; I don't mind if somebody beats me to the punch, even if they're a little early! :-) Graham87 10:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done with thanks to the five admins for their service. If someone could update the relevant lists, I would be grateful. WJBscribe (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the easy lists. I'm not sure how to do the actions though, could someone tell me what each column stands for? Thanks. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lixxx235: Thanks, I've done the rest. The actions list is based on the admin stats page. Graham87 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Graham87: Ah, ok, thought I was going to have to count them by hand :P --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

LinkFA-Bot has no edits since 2011 and, most important, its task is void. Link FA/FL/GA links have been deleted. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I have removed the flag. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alph Bot. Interwiki bots have no approval anymore. We removed flags from almost all of them. It turns we forgot some. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

AvocatoBot never moved from toolserver and it is/was an interwiki bot. I contacted the bot owner here. But I got no response. Its tasks are void anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've withdrawn the rights there; the operators could re-apply for other tasks if they wish and have them restored. –xeno^talk 18:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you remove the admin bit from my account please? I no longer want it. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for your service. I restored rollback which was present in your pre-admin state but if you don't want that either, just let us know. –xeno^talk 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Can this blocked account be renamed, please? JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've globally suppressed the username. Is there any benefit to renaming it over this course of action? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose that there is no local distinction between hidden and oversighted (and that that name shouldn't be oversighted). Would hiding globally be sufficient? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's enough, thanks, though the offensive name is still visible by clicking on the link above. It's no longer in the list of users, or in the log of my actions. The important thing is that nobody should come on it by chance, and particularly that the attacker should not be able to find it to show to anybody. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone should delete the talk page per IAR. NE Ent 10:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

StringTheory11 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log).

Sorry to ask for the tools back so soon after resigning, but I'm clearly more useful to the project with them than without them, even with a reduced activity level. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't under a cloud when I did it, I see no problems with doing this after the standard 24h waiting period. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No concerns here. Pakaran 17:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if I should just put this in at rename requests or somewhere else. I have a few stray edits under my old username that happened when I switched windows between Commons and WP EN before things were truly global and I hadn't been renamed at Commons yet. I once noted with bemusement that this had been discussed on a publicly archived mailing list. My efforts at requesting redaction for privacy* reasons there were met with crickets. That part isn't your problem, but I thought I would mention it. *(Obviously I didn't disappear so it's not a huge privacy issue, but I'd still like to move away from my old username.) Anyway, is it possible to merge those edits back into my current account? Thanks, Valfontis (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Valfontis. First of all I apologise that your rename was discussed so publicly. I am going to see if we can get that deleted (or at least make it so it isn't indexed by google). There are plenty of examples of this phenomenon and there were plenty of renames that raised no privacy issues whatsoever that could have been used to illustrate the same point. As to merging the contributions, that isn't possible yet but is being implemented. I expect the features will be live within a few months or so, although experience tells me these things can take a while. WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. Are we using gmane to host official wikimedia lists, or does gmane just copy this content from elsewhere? WJBscribe (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The MediaWiki API mailing list archives are publicly accessible on lists.wikimedia.org, so I supposed they could be crawlable and copiable by external services (such as gmane). I don't know if that is intentional not if it could (or should) be prevented. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Valfontis: as WJBscribe says, merging accounts isn't currently available; in the meantime would you like me to rename your old account to something less identifiable? 28bytes (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me ponder that and get back to you. My old name is around on an estimated jillion talkpages, so it's not like people can't connect the dots. Thanks for the replies. Valfontis (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've pondered, don't worry about it. @WJBscribe: any progress on the indexing issue above? In the meantime, where should I watch for the merge feature to go live? Valfontis (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Valfontis: Account merges would likely be handled at m:SRUC or some variant of that. –xeno^talk 13:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I'll bookmark it. Valfontis (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

On the other issue, there's a limited amount we can do since the mailing list posts were picked up by third party sites. That's one of a number of reasons why people should be careful what they say on WMF mailing lists. That said, the original mailing list posts are still picked up by google, and that is something that we ought to be able to address. WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: The archived versions of mailing list posts hosted on lists.wikimedia.org shouldn't be indexed by Google per the relevant robots.txt file. Graham87 08:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not Done. Please submit a new RFA to have the tools reinstated. This may require a bit of time spent working on various admin and non-admin tasks so people will think you are familiar with the current policies and guidelines. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear all

I am writing to request a reinstatement of the administrative permissions for my account, following the suspension in January 2013.

Please let me know if you require any further information.

Kind regards

¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I might be wrong and a bureaucrat will need to confirm this, but my reading of Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy inactivity is that as it is over 2 years since your admin tools were removed due to inactivity you can only regain the admin tools via an RFA. Davewild (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) To my non-bureaucrat eye, it looks like it has been more than three years since your last edit or logged action, and more than two years since you were most-recently desysopped for inactivity: [10]. Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy inactivity, it appears that you will need to re-request adminship through WP:RFA. (A successful request there would likely be contingent on a period of renewed activity in which you demonstrate your familiarity with current Wikipedia policy, practice, and norms. Six years is a long time to be away.) It's up to the 'crats to give you the official word, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I'm afraid I must concur with Davewild and TenOfAllTrades; the guidelines for resysopping do not allow a return of the administrative permissions in this case (see #4). You are free to submit a fresh request for adminship at any time. –xeno^talk 15:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I agree with xeno. A new RFA will need to be submitted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, their user page still has "Categories: Wikipedia administrators" at the bottom. Rgrds. --64.85.214.243 (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the topicon which was placing them in that category. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with this motion of the Arbitration Committee, please remove administrative tools from Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say that it's nice to see that ArbCom is willing to consider the facts and swiftly desysop by motion when it deems appropriate, irrespective of the merits of this particular case. Perhaps someone ought to crosspost this motion and its execution to WT:RFA so that they can consider the ease of removing a rogue admin under the present ArbCom and policy regime. Perhaps based on this we might consider lowering our standards, for example, from a 70-75 discretionary range to 60-65. Andrevan@ 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also glad to see they acted quickly and its about time. I wouldn't go cross-posting anything though just because of one isolated case. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a new development. The ArbCom has been doing swift desysops by motion since at least January 2010. (Craigy144 went from original AN/I discussion of his misconduct to closure of the Arbitration motion in 10 days. A good chunk of that elapsed time was the ArbCom leaving Craigy144 an opportunity to respond before finalizing the motion. Most recently, Secret was desysopped by motion in December 2014; the process took a total of 15 days from misuse of tools to motion. And that case had to be handled on the mailing list, since it involved RevDeleted information. By motion – rather than by case – is probably the biggest share of ArbCom desysoppings.)

That said, it is likely to have little effect on RfA. WT:RfA already knows that support percentage in RfA is a terrible predictor of future misconduct (the median desysopped admin scored something like 93% support on his RfA). And the "rogue admin runks amok" scenario has always been more bogeyman than reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Craigy144 had 100% support (13/0/1) in 2005 when there was hardly anybody voting at RfA, and not much opposition anyway. Dreadstar had 78.6% (55/15/1) in 2007. Secret had 75.7% (109/35/11) on his last RfA (his 11th) in 2013, and disclosed serious health issues. Judging from these three widely differing cases with their particular peculiarities, I don't think that one can establish any pattern or rule, deriving from the RfA voting stats, as to which admin will be desysopped in the future. Many others with the same or similar original RfA votes have been adminning away happily ever since... Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• DESiegel (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Nishkid64 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• LAX (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Fl (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Mike Halterman (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Diberri (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 05:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

RobyWayne (talk · contribs) has just become active again, so there probably isn't any point in de-sysopping him now; I've removed him from the list above. Graham87 05:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to all for their hard work. Worm^TT(talk) 07:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I requested removal of the admin bit about 3 months back due to overwhelming real world concerns. I believe things are sufficiently settled that I can once again serve within community expectations for administrators. I would request the admin bit be restored at your earliest convenience, after the minimum 24 hour waiting/discussion period. I don't expect to be extremely active this year, but any help I can offer is still help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no problems with returning the bit after the 24 hour waiting period. Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is  Done; sorry for the delay. –xeno^talk 14:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. No problem with the delay, I haven't even put the tools to use yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please revert this rights change and restore my admin rights, after the 24-hour waiting period. When requesting desysop, I referred to a problematic real-life situation, which seems now to be resolved. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Done –xeno^talk 15:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Completely unrelated

For unrelated reasons, I just looked quickly at WP:CHU and saw its comment about WMF-wide SUL. Since you bureaucrats formerly did renames, I hope you know: how do I discover if all my accounts are unified? Before they created SUL in 2008, I had registered "Nyttend" on three wikis: here, Commons, and the German Wikipedia. I know that the Commons account is unified, but I don't know whether de:wp is, and I don't know how to find out. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth/Nyttend; it appears your accounts are unified. –xeno^talk 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And you can go to Special:MergeAccount to merge any outliers. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, good. Other than occasional use of those three accounts, I've basically never used accounts for anything except cross-wiki stuff like vandalism-fighting and pre-Wikidata babel link work. If any unattached accounts exist somehow, they won't matter. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Συντάκτης, I want to become an Administrator, so please try to nominate me to become an one Συντάκτης (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Συντάκτης (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, new administrators are added through a community conversation at RFA. You should review the Guide to Requests for Adminship before requesting adminship. As a general rule, you should have 3-4 thousand edits as well as at least a year or two of experience on the English Wikipedia before submitting a request for adminship. If you have any questions, please feel free to let us know. Thanks, Nakon 02:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(Title was "Confusion reigns inside my little head" but upon reflection that's a pretty stupid name for a thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC))
If someone wants a courtesy vanishing, can they still email the crat's mailing list? There are some things at WP:VANISH that I think have been made obsolete with the whole SUL consolidation thing. I need to counsel someone on how to request this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There's always the steward/global renamers mailing list if it's a global vanishing. Andrevan@ 02:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The crat's list is still available - though the steward/global renamers lists are probably better. Worm^TT(talk) 07:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is good reason to keep the request off-wiki (i.e. serious privacy issues, etc), I strongly recommend emailing individuals rather than lists. In my opinion, mailing lists are a bad place for confidential information because:

1. The lists are effectively a forwarding service that will circulate the email to the addresses of those subscribed to the list - you have no way of knowing how secure the email accounts of the list members are.
2. The email will be stored in an archive that could be accessed by anyone who is given access to the list in the future.

I worry that we give people a false sense of security when we encourage the use of the lists. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The case I originally posted about has now been resolved by someone else, but I want to understand how vanishings work now, so I can perhaps tweak WP:VANISH to correspond to current reality. As I understand it:

• Bureaucrats can't locally rename people anymore as bureaucrats
• Many of our bureaucrats (most? all?) have separate permissions through Meta that allow them to do a global rename
• It's no longer possible to do a courtesy vanishing on just one wiki, you've got to do it globally
• For on-wiki requests with no serious privacy concerns, WP:CHU/SIMPLE can still be used to request a rename to User:jfsljflsjflskd or something.
• For off-wiki requests but with no serious privacy concerns (which as WJBscribe points out may be oxymoronic), the crat mailing list is still an option, although the stewards mailing list (or global rename list if there is such a thing) might be better.
• For people with serious privacy issues, it's best to skip the mailing lists, and pick a crat/global renamer/steward that you know/trust, and email them individually.

Is any of that correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Personally, I'd tell them not to bother with the Crats' list or an individual Crat who doesn't [yet?] have the global rename tick. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I quite often refer people to WP:VANISH who have put {{db-u1}} on their both their user and user talk pages, telling them to use it if blanking their talk page is not enough for them. These are not people who would know individual 'crats or stewards, or what the difference is. The instructions at VANISH are to use Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats or email wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org. If those are no longer the right addresses, we should update it. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. that's why I'm asking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think the entire concept behind WP:VANISH has essentially been deprecated by the move to SUL. While accounts can be renamed, those renamings are all logged and publicly available, and there is no global consensus for suppression of these log entries. I'm a little fuzzy on how page moves happen following global renaming, but there would automatically be redirects made and moves logged; again, one would have to specifically request that no redirects be made (no global consensus) and the move logs suppressed (again, no global consensus). As well, I know that for many years the stewards email list did not accept any emails from non-subscribers; someone should check if that has been changed. The bottom line is that if one wants to vanish, the thing to do is scramble the password, remove the email address from the preferences, and walk away; that permanently prevents reanimation of the account. The punitive elements of the current policy (paraphrased, "if you come back, we're going to restore everything anyway") has never been a net positive.

  Generally speaking, what a lot of people are looking for when they seek "vanishing" is actually an account rename that will help them to protect their privacy; they don't actually want to be prevented from continuing to edit. WP:VANISH has been "misused" for this purpose for as long as I can remember, and its use in this way has periodically caused rather perverse difficulties for those who were genuinely seeking to protect themselves. On the other hand, we've had people try to use it this way who then returned to exactly the same battlegrounds and behaved in such a way that it was obvious what their previous account was, and then they would demand (I don't think a milder word will do) that oversighters "fix" the "privacy breaches" that resulted when others pointed out their prior account, insisting it was "outing". A discussion of how this can be done on an SUL/global account (or even if it should be done) needs to be held at Meta to seek the opinions of the broader Wikimedia community. Risker (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• A common type of would-be vanisher is someone who has come here thinking this is a social-networking site, seen his vanity articles and glowing user-pages about himself deleted, and has finally got the message, or who engaged in silly vandalism under his real name years ago when young. He (it's usually he) doesn't plan to come back, but would like to be sure that searches on his name don't turn up a record of his youthful indiscretions or unsuccessful self-promotion. I think that's the sort of case WP:VANISH was designed for. Can we now do nothing for him? JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think English Wikipedia can do it by itself anymore; however, I notice that there's a language link to similar processes for many of the larger Wikipedias on WP:VANISH, so there's probably a reasonable chance that some sort of global process can be developed. I'm not in a position to make a lot of cross-language comparisons to the relevant policies elsewhere right at the moment, so there may be some significant variances in how a similar process is used elsewhere. Risker (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Risker's point about VANISHed accounts being easy to track due to log entries, page moves, etc. -- I have not yet come across an enwiki account that had gone through the normal VANISH process for which I wasn't able to precisely trace the original account name in a manner of minutes, and I've never been able to view suppressed content. The process has always seemed like less-than-it-promises. Page move logs, signed edits, talk page history -- there's always a way to trace someone for those curious enough to try, because suppressing everything (even RevDel'ing) isn't feasible or realistic. If that was the end result locally on enwiki, I cannot imagine that a global process will accomplish anything better. The only aspect of VANISHing that makes sense is renaming the account to something other than its original name (and not keeping old-name-redirects) for reasons of search indexing and an appearance of at-a-glance privacy against those who won't go looking behind the curtains. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Vanishing requests should be sent to stewards at wikimedia dot org, which is an OTRS queue. Not to the global-renamers mailing list (do we want the 100 people on that list all learning about an editor's identity?), not to the stewards-l mailing list that rejects almost all outside mail, not to the enwiki crat mailing list (half of them can't globally rename so why do they need to know about this?). If it needs OS, stewards can handle it on wikis without oversighters, or flag down people as necessary. (When I was a steward, I said this in several places; apparently I wasn't clear enough). --Rschen7754 02:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the rename portion of a 'courtesy vanish' would be be best handled by stewardswikimedia if the requesting does not wish to file at the onwiki venues. –xeno^talk 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) this might not actually be true if they don't have an "EmailUser" shortcut for verification. –xeno^talk 12:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rschen7754 and Xeno, that is simple and clear and makes sense. When I get a chance I'll tweak the advice at WP:VANISH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You can still email the crat list on enwiki as there are several of us on that list who can do global renaming. I think it's fine to have requests be sent there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wording change

I've changed the relevant wording on the policy page. Mdann52 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the new wording is misleading. Stewards are not the only ones who can change usernames, and many of the 'crats here are also global renamers. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable for people to send a request to the 'crat mailing list as there are several of us there who handle such requests. Your reversal of my edits on Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing are not helpful and violate WP:DISPUTE. Once your changes were reverted, you should have come here for further discussion rather than edit warring and reverting my perfectly valid and accurate edits. You are not a global renamer as far as I am aware, so you do not know what you are talking about here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am aware of the fact most stewards have global rename rights. However, I fail to see how telling people to contact a steward to request this (which is the conclusion of the thread, as mentioned in the"resolved header above) is misleading. Just because I'm not a global renamer does not mean I don't understand how stuff works - I'm not a checkuser, for example, but I've got a good idea how that all works. Mdann52 (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete my comments again. Two days of a a little bit of back-and-forth doesn't equal consensus. And Stewards don't have time to handle all vanishing requests; that's why there are global renamers, who handle the vast majority of the requests. We don't need to be swamping them with all the emailed requests and everything that used to be posted at CHUS. This has been discussed by the global renamers already, and the general consensus there is for people to make the initial requests on their home wikis by 'crats who are also global renamers (unless there aren't any on that wiki) and only contact the stewards if it's something which can't be handled by the global renamers. That's why I made the wording changes I did. It still allows them to contact the stewards if they feel they must, but directs all regular vanishing requests to the same place as always, where we are doing a perfectly fine job of keeping up with those requests. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 12:33 am, Today (UTC−6)

That was accidental (it appears to have been caused by an edit conflict, mobile tends not to handle them too well). Considering only 9 users have global renamer here, so the vast majority of crats couldn't act on a request is also a factor, however there was a discussion above with no opposition to the proposal, that's what I based the request on. I do think there should be a wider discussion on courtesy vanishing, and whether it is still a useful tool to have, or whether it should be stopped on here. However, it does seem that more steward are willing and able to deal with these then locally, so it does seem to make sense to direct them towards them. An RfC into this may make sense, however I don't see it getting much participation. Mdann52 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we need an RfC for something which already has a process which is working just fine. Why do we need to fix something which isn't broken? The modifications I made clarified things enough given the new process and without sending everyone to the stewards for help which doesn't require or even benefit from having a steward do it in most cases. That's what global renamers are for: to handle renaming requests, including vanishing requests, and in almost every case we can handle the request. There are enough of us here to handle the number of requests received here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I might have concluded too soon that the steward queue is best for this; do they even have an "EmailUser" shortcut for emailing? If not how are they going to verify the request was sent by the target user? –xeno^talk 12:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I suppose one could be set up. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There was discussion about this a while ago, ping User:Ajraddatz --Rschen7754 16:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I remember it being agreed that stewards could fill such requests. We had one request for vanishing on the stewards queue yesterday with no accompanying proof that it was the user, so if we were to do that a "stewards" account with the email directing to the OTRS queue would be needed. To the best of my knowledge, we weren't doing anything more than renaming for vanishing, so any global renamer could do it (though I agree with you above that publishing the name of a user who wants to disappear to 100+ people isn't a good idea). If enwiki has enough bureaucrats that are also global renamers, then these requests could really be handled by local crats, and any cases requiring oversight could be directed to stewards / local oversighters depending on the case. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's exactly what we've been doing. People send the requests to the crat mailing list (which has (maybe) 15-20 people on it), and we'll forward them to oversight and/or stewards if needed (it almost never is needed). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, but is it appropriate for bureaucrats (who are not identified) to be handling information that might need to be oversighted? --Rschen7754 00:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If the information is already publicly available, then it doesn't really matter. We always forward any such issues to oversight for assistance, if needed. And there are some of us (me, for instance) who are already identified to the WFM due to handling OTRS issues, checkuser/oversight, and/or steward responsibilities, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best for the page to direct users to two venues, bureaucrats if there is no suppressible information involved and stewards if there is? Trying to explain what that is might be a nightmare, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did before Mdann52 changed it back. You can see the version I created here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it back to your version while keeping some of the global info and providing the global rename queue as another option. I'm not sure if I am allowed to do that, so please change it as necessary. I think that directing to local bureaucrats will work for now, anyway. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• How about a completely separate point (but appropriate for this venue) -- I was under the impression 'crats (like OS and CUs and Stewards) were required to identify to the foundation. I assume some of them are anyways (I am, and I'm just an admin), but Rschen's post above made me realize there was no obligation for them to. Was this changed at some point, or was I just wrong? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have never been required to identify to the Foundation. –xeno^talk 01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Special:GlobalRenameRequest

This facility is now available; the suggestion was made at Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing#Updating the instruction to the new paradigm to route requests for courtesy vanishing through there. –xeno^talk 19:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If privacy is valued with these requests then it isn't ideal; any global renamer / steward can see those even after they are completed. In practicality, nobody will look, but the information is still accessible. That said, if there is no concern with those trusted users being able to see the past vanishing requests then I think that is a good solution. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to get to be a position in the wikipedia project, I see I am beginner to my newly created account but I know that I will follow with my valid contributions if you or someone doing a favor to answer my question I'll always thank thank you. Representado (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you for your interest Representado, but before you can be considered for any of the Wikipedia "user rights" you will need to make a few hundred useful edits to articles in an acceptable standard of English: Noyster (talk), 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

When admins are desysyoped due to inactivity, is it S.O.P. to check their user page for admin templates, etc.? I stumbled upon one & updated their user pager per INACTIVITY (if I overstepped, please correct as appropriate). Does a bot ever scan CAT:ADMINS for non-admins just to check? Rgrds. --64.85.217.6 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

When processing the inactivity requests, I don't believe the processing bureaucrat usually updates userpages. I believe other users who assist with this process are doing so, though. –xeno^talk 14:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I've never updated a userpage. The admin template includes a "check" button for a reason :) Worm^TT(talk) 07:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never done that. Having that on one's page doesn't make them an admin, however, and people can easily find out if they are really an admin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I usually do update the userpages (e.g. [11], [12]) but it sounds as if I might be in the minority. WJBscribe (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have at one time, but I found that not all admins even had one of those templates on their page, so I think I stopped checking the userpage due to lack of results. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in... I haven't ever checked either, including when I remove the mop for other reasons. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone purge this name from the record? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Requests to hide abusive usernames should be sent to the Wikipedia:Oversight team / special:EmailUser/Oversight. –xeno^talk 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll make a note of that, Xeno. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno and Drmies: From an Oversight perspective, it's also sometimes better just to send it to the stewards' mailing list for global lock and suppression since all usernames are global now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Please feel free to update the advice in the Front matter if that is now the case. –xeno^talk 11:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify that that was personal opinion as an Oversighter. I'll have a chat with the team and see what they think. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Whaddayaknow--I never saw that sentence (in the front matter) until now. No wonder I get such mediocre evaluations. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Just resurrecting this from the archive to say that I've made the change (to the front matter). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello all. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Reports bot please grant the bot flag to Reports bot. Thanks, Harej (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved from user talk:xeno; was Question about cleanup following user rename

Hello Xeno. Please could you take a look at User talk:SwagMaster2030? I found this page at Special:DoubleRedirects and I thought I might be able to help by simply removing the invalid circular redirect. But then I got to wondering whether the sequence of events (two consecutive page moves) could have destroyed some page history and whether it might be better to have an admin check it out? Likewise User:SwagMaster2030 and User talk:Tabletrack – the latter, with a similar history, I did edit before I had this thought. Just trying to err on the side of caution. Thanks a lot. – Wdchk (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's weird; I can't find any deleted history. Not sure why those circular redirects were created. –xeno^talk 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The user moved the talk page from Percy to Swag while requesting the rename, moving the history to Swag and leaving a redirect at Percy. Then, when Xeno renamed, it moved Percy over Swag -- which means, moved the redirect revision at Percy over the existing history at Swag, and left a "new" redirect at Percy. The result is that both pages are redirects to Swag. The bug is that the auto pagemove done during renaming "crushed" the existing history at Swag -- it should be in "deleted revisions" if moved normally, but it isn't. I wonder if that happens everytime you rename a user and the userpages at the new name have histories -- they become crushed instead of deleted. Is this something you have encountered before? Is there a fix (restoring from database or whatnot)? This sounds like something that could be tested using dummies, and if it does happen everytime, it is definitely something that needs to be taken into account when renaming (histories at userpages of target username) -- to avoid being crushed, they may need to be "moved out of the way" and histmerged back in after the rename is done. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think such a thing was possible, certainly sounds buggy. @Amalthea: any idea about this? –xeno^talk

I'll ask Graham87 about it too -- he's probably the user with the deepest knowledge about page histories. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: I have absolutely no idea where the page history went, either. Perhaps this should be taken to Phabricator? Graham87 07:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is SwagMaster2030! I can't find my OWN user page? What should I do? SwagMaster2030 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SwagMaster2030. This appears to be a rather serious and high-priority bug where revisions can be eliminated via renaming and no longer available for admins to retrieve. I have replicated the bug and destroyed revision 659870568 [13] [14].

1. User moves their userpage to a desired new name
2. User later requests rename
3. Rename ends up moving the user-created redirect over the proper target and old revisions are nowhere to be found.

Expected behaviour: Old revisions would be available in the deleted edits.

I'm hoping someone can file it, I don't have the time at present. @Salvidrim!, Avraham, MBisanz, Acalamari, Legoktm, Keegan (WMF), and MZMcBride:. Wdchk thank you for bringing this to our attention! –xeno^talk 13:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• There was easier than I thought; see phabricator:T97532. –xeno^talk 14:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  And wasn't new either; see phabricator:T97536 for tracking. –xeno^talk 15:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Cowman109 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Fetchcomms (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Borisblue (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Soumyasch (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Mkmcconn (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Tannin (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Docu (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Hemlock Martinis (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Moni3 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• AlainV (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 13:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)  Done Thanks to each for their hard work. Even more of a shame that I remember working with a couple on that list. Worm^TT(talk) 13:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 30#Should we transition the rename process to m:SRUC?

Users are now able to request renames via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. meta:Global renamers have access to meta:Special:GlobalRenameQueue to fulfill these requests.

Once Keegan (WMF) confirms it's ready for regular business, should we start directing users to this interface for straightforward renames, moving to reduce volume to the WP:CHU (and then WP:USURP; once global usurpation policy is decided)?

Benefits are a much simpler process for both the enduser & processor and increased volunteer coverage - both likely resulting in faster response time, while users blocked for usernames can request renaming while blocked.

As before, tradeoffs to consider are the further loss of local control over target usernames, that the local process page would no longer serve as a check-and-balance with respect to local username enforcement.

With this process there is less user engagement also; we should probably maintain the old venues for some time to cover edge cases. From what I understand, users receive reasons for declined requests via email, though I'm not sure what happens if no email (Keegan?). In the current change username process, there is some back-and-forth (for example if a username violations policy in some way), with this new system I'm not sure how well that would work (especially given it's off-project) so this is why I am somewhat hesitant. –xeno^talk 16:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not if the process is ready, however I share xeno's concerns about loss of local control over target usernames. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, the exact text of the rejection e-mail is:
  

The request to rename "[uname]" to "[target uname]" could not be completed.

For more information, please visit this help page: m:Help:Unified login#Frequently asked questions. To discuss your rename request, you can post on this page: m:Talk:Steward requests/Username changes. You must still log in to your current account name first.

So it does direct users to the proper venue on Meta for further discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought it conveyed a reason back to the user. And if the user has no email? –xeno^talk 17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You have to provide an e-mail with the rename request itself. If you look at SRUC's talk page, plenty of users are complaining about being declined without apparent or explained reason. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bug related to this: phabricator:T96957. –xeno^talk 18:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Related to this topic, how should WP:ACC requests for names that where renamed/moved by SULF be resolved? Should they be sent to checkuser to see if the account that got the global user that got the username is actually active? Should they be sent to Special:GlobalRenameRequest? I just came across my first one of these today where a name being requested was "available" according to enwp but the previous user at that name was moved to ...~enwiki so it wasn't really available. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno: ACC and OTRS is scrambling to figure out how to handle these at their respective departments, is there any documentation ? maybe on Meta explaining what this process is/about. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Any name taken on any project should no longer be considered "available" locally; all usernames must be unique globally. If a user wants to petition to take over the name and it exists on a project other than enwiki they will need to petition at m:SRUC (if only enwiki account exists, they can go to WP:USURP still). If I misunderstood the question, please clarify. –xeno^talk 22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno:@Technical 13: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Technical 13 was referring to the local notice "This account is not registered," which does still show up if the global account has never visited the wiki while logged in. There is a difference between "This account is not registered" and "This account is available," so always take a moment to swing by Special:CentralAuth to check global registration. It's available on every wiki. CheckUser is not needed, you can see if an account is "active" by checking contributions. However, "active" is a highly subjective definition that varies wildly from wiki to wiki, so it's not generally considered a criterion in renaming. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): Perhaps; where does that notice display? –xeno^talk 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's at MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist-view. You see it when you check a userpage for a non-existent local account, i.e. User:Zhou, which for now only exists on enwikibooks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah right, Thanks. Yes, definitely any advice on checking whether a username is available should refer to Special:CentralAuth for checking. –xeno^talk 22:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that helps. thanks, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support and I'd also suggest we seriously review WP:RTV too. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support Other Wikimedia projects will direct to this space, so now anyone can get a new name for English Wikipedia on any Wikimedia project. Review over usernames on English Wikipedia can still occur, as users could still be blocked for having an inappropriate userrname here. Now the difference is that the review has to happen after names are granted, and not preliminary to the execution of the rename.

I hardly think this can be opposed. Practically all channels will point to this process for renaming accounts so it is inevitable that English Wikipedia must point there eventually. It would be best to adapt to this by changing local guidelines to accommodate this new system.

So far as I know, there has never been opposition to having SUL anyway, so I think everyone who had an opinion on the matter was anticipating that this would happen anyway. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the option to the main changing username landing page: [15]. Users are already filing requests there (even unrelated to the unification) anyway. The language of Special:GlobalRenameRequest needs to be updated to indicate that global renames as well as Stewards have access to the queue and data. –xeno^talk 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have clarified the wording of MediaWiki:Globalrenamerequest-pretext, but y'all are welcome to imporve it further. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Salvidrim! Thanks for pointing me to that, I was looking for it! Tweaked. –xeno^talk 18:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot. Can I get a bot flag for B-bot (talk · contribs), please? --B (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done –xeno^talk 01:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --B (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)