Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

To me, I think the above proposals and call by John Reid is akin to somebody holding a gun to my head, and asking me to don my national colours to prove my patriotism. I refuse to get drawn into petty politics, which is what the RFA has now turn into. Nevertheless I shall come up with a detailed report of what's going wrong with RFA and how we can remedy it. If you would like to know my statement on promotion, please read my RFB, I refuse deviate from my original action plan. As for commitment to the project, please check my contribs and userpage. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and will explicitly not support this measure. If we need martyrs, it isn't bureaucrats, it's the RfA. And the RfA can be reformed after well reasoned discussion. Demanding bureaucrats to do this is counter-productive. We're not stupid. There is only one implied correct answer to the question and if the bureaucrats don't want to answer the black & white question in exactly the right way, then they might as well resign. Afterall, there is no room here for nuanced answers. In fact, bureaucrats should just skip answering the question and just resign immediately if they refuse to answer it correctly. Would detractors accept the following: "I agree that bureaucrats serve to community consensus except when such consensus violates the core policy of Wikipedia"? I couldn't endorse that statement myself, because there are times when community consensus is wrong. Period. Jimbo has on a few occasions overriden such discussion in order to maintain the spirit, purpose, and core policy of Wikipedia. -- RM 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• If answering in opposition to the community is akin to serving your own head on a platter, then it would seem the community has a very, very strong expectation that the bureaucrats follow what they say in conferring adminship on people. If that is the case, then the bureaucrats need to do a much better job of explaining why this expectation is a false one, and show how RfA really is supposed to work and start doing it, unflinchingly. --Durin 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a bit shy to say that any b'crat who fails to endorse above should be recalled by our community. John Reid 03:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John, before you ask us to swear allegiance to what not, I'd like you to dig up statistics on the number of sucessful/unsucessful nominations that you felt were running contrary to the community spirit. Secondly, I'd like to give you a case study (this was also discussed on WT:FAC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena as to what you can deduce from the oppose votes. I'd like your views on the failed RFA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have fun with that. I'll start by dissenting. If Willy on Wheels gets community consensus to be an admin, I will fail it. Just an obvious example why your false dichotomy is ludicrous. It's just too black and white. And I'm not surprised you're not getting many people to line up for your firing range. It's just not helpful for the community. - Taxman ^Talk 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John, please stop trolling our bureaucrats :-P --Kim Bruning 13:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• You may not appreciate John's style, but John is directly addressing the schism that has generated. So far, the response has been generally to ignore the schism. Taxman notes that consensus could get it wrong if consensus decided to promote Willy. Strawman. Nobody in their right minds at RfA would vote in favor of Willy. Regardless, what Taxman highlights is simply the schism; the notion that "getting it right" is not always the same as "consensus". That's the root of the schism. Carnildo was promoted on "getting it right" not on "consensus", in one of the few cases where "getting it right" and "consensus" did not concur. John is most emphatically not trolling. He is rather symbolic of the frustration that a set of users feel at what has happened. You might not like that these people are upset. You can attempt to marginalize them as supposedly not in keeping with the goals of the project. You can attempt to marginalize them by calling them trolls. At the end of the day, the reality is that a schism has generated. To date, the bureaucrats have been unwilling to address it. --Durin 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

While I generally feel that having a community is important, I do have to remember that having a community is the means, not the end. The duty of all participants in this project (including bureaucrats) is to make an encyclopedia. I'll go and take another look at the Carnildo RFA. Kim Bruning 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is it, basically. We have bureaucrats using consensus to determine the best administrator candidates. If consensus should get it wrong, the process would have failed and the bureaucrats must ignore all rules. If the rules say that bureaucrats must not use their brains, the rules are wrong and must be ignored. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of the above, I would ask the 'Crats a more neutral question. The frequent dissent on RFA's talk page seems to stem from the problem that nobody really knows what an 'admin' is supposed to be. Is adminship "no big deal"? Are admins "held to very high standards"? Does adminship require the "trust" of anyone? If so, of whom? And what would happen if the trust is lost? Answers on such questions vary on whom you ask.

So I'm asking you. Would some (or preferably, most) of the Bureaucrats please briefly state what they think being an admin entails? I'll immediately add that this is not any kind of official proposal, not set in stone, and not an oath you are being sworn to. I would simply like to hear your opinions. Non-crats please refrain from commenting here for the time being, to avoid convoluting. --Radiant! 19:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always liked to put forth my views on this subject and I'll restate it once again:

• Adminship means that the candidate should have good judgement to carry out his duties above all else.
• An admin should be the face of the encyclopedia: be fluent in understanding core wikipedia policies and processes such as keeping a cool head in disputes, copyright understanding, NPOV, NPA, and notability criteria. Please note: Edits to the wikipedia namespace are *not* an accurate metric for this criteria.
• Experience. Some amount of staying experience needed to gain adminship. (3 months to 1,000 non-minor edits should be a defining criteria). Also some experience in participating in ongoing discussions are needed, as an admin may be required to play a role of a mediator from time to time.
• Some experience in editing articles. Knowing about how articles are supposed to be written as this is our primary purpose of existance. From my experience, those who absolutely clueless with how articles are supposed to be written tend to make B-grade admins and this reflects when they participate in discussions on talk pages and AFDs.
• A history of civility, more so in the last 2-3 months. Unless very serious, a one-off incident shouldn't be used to oppose a candidate.
• A candidate should be willing to share his/her knowledge to newcomers and also be willing to mentor inexperienced wikipedians if asked.
• I do not consider a history of RC patrol to be mandatory. To me, fighting vandalism should be the duty of each and every wikipedian. RC patrol, or reverting through watchlists are equally important.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but that didn't really answer my question. You've given a list of criteria similar to what people might use to "vote" support or oppose on an RFA, whereas what I'm really looking for is a more fundamental definition of what an admin is. >Radiant< 14:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A core defination: "A experienced and trusted user who can exercise good judgement when needed to represent what wikipedia is, and/or to take care of wikipedia's internal workings" =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Nichalp. That sounds like a sensible definition and I agree with it. Just for the record, could one or two other 'crats please chime in and say if this is a reasonable def or if we're missing something? I'm kind of trying to avert future nastiness at WT:RFA and having an agreed-upon definition sounds like a nice place to start. >Radiant< 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think Radiant's neutral question is helpful, but misses the point. All of us who are regulars at RfA have standards of one sort or another on what makes a good admin. The core issue here is not what our standards are. The core issue is the schism that has recently generated between the RfA regulars and the bureaucrat corps. John Reid's question, though apparently regarded as insulting, is more directly aimed at addressing the schism. The bureaucrats have largely been silent of late in this debate. Now is not the time to be silent, to hope this problem will go away if enough silence is given. I'd strongly welcome a concerted effort on the part of the bureaucrats to address the schism that has generated. --Durin 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've always been a staunch supporter of the bureaucrats, but I agree in this one that silence at this point is *not* constructive. As I recently discovered, being a bureaucrat is different from being an admin. While an admin may be "no big deal" to many people, a bureaucrat position is considered a "burden", one with a lot of work associated with it. My point here being that the issues raised recently should be addressed by bureaucrats, as interaction with the community is an important part of being one. Radiant's question was very helpful, I believe. -- RM 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been following all of the discussions here. So far, it seems to me like an enormous generalization. All of this has been generated by a decision made in Carnildo's RfA, not by any kind of decision making pattern on the part of the Bureaucracy in general. Taxman has been addressing the criticism that the decision (and its process) sparked. He has even admitted that the way in which the decision was made was perhaps not ideal. I have no reason to believe, given all that, that this situation would be repeated in the forseeable future.
To derive from this situation a conclusion that Bureaucrats could be looking to "ignore community consensus [and rule RfA with an iron fist]" is completely unjustified. Everyone who is a regular in RfA knows how the old saying goes: "we elect Bureaucrats to make the tough decisions, determine consensus in difficult scenarios", etc. Well, sometimes, in order to do our job, we need to think outside the box, try new solutions -- as former Bureaucrat Cecropia did in putting forward the 75-80% margin of discretion for promotion in troubled RfAs. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, it doesn't. People have spoken in the sense that the solution that Taxman tried did not suit them. We hear you. It is, after all, a human process.
Without going into any specifics of Carnildo's RfA, since I wasn't involved in the process of closing that RfA, let's also not forget that those difficult RfAs can yield complicated scenarios: in extreme cases, an apparent consensus in the neighborhood of circa 60% could, in theory, result in promotion, assuming a scenario where a RfA has been spammed by sockpuppets and bad-faith or bandwagonning !votes. After going through all the participants, a Bureaucrat could arrive at a real consensus, amidst the good-faith, well-reasoned participants, that would be sufficent for promotion -- and as a matter of fact, whenever people feel that we have not done that, they protest as well, asking if all we ever do is just count votes. At the same time, if a user is promoted whose RfA had an apparent consensus of 61%, people also protest, saying that we are overlooking consensus and doing as we please. It's almost a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. But that's fine: addressing people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made (or how they were made) is part of the job -- and Taxman, as the principal Bureaucrat involved in closing Carnildo's RfA, has been doing it: he has not refused to answer questions as to how or why the decision was made as it was. It comes with the territory.
However, I'm sure you will agree that it is not possible for us to do our job as you yourselves would want us to do it if, whenever a controversial decision is made, people start asking us to line up and renew our "vows" to the project officially. The bottom line is: we are here to make those decisions. The community is not only free, but in fact expected to protest if it feels that any of our decisions were not in keeping with its expectations. But to go from there to suggest that Bureaucrats could be looking to ignore consensus altogether and take over RfA entirely is a giant leap, and one that is completely unjustified by the big picture.
Let's not confuse things: the Carnildo decision was not appreciated. That's one thing. Questioning the Bureaucrats' commitment to the project, that's quite different. Redux 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Redux's post above is the best that I've read in the torrent of words that has been written since the closing of the Carnildo RFA. I have posted in several messages on WP:RFA a call for the bureaucrats to "address people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made" because, IMO, Taxman's failure to do this adequately is part of the reason that the discontent has been so high. I think the more extreme reactions have been "over the top" but I also think that it is inappropriate for bureaucrats to say "get over it, it's done, let's move on". If there is a significant discontent, it is incumbent on the bureaucrats to make an earnest effort to address the reasonable basis of that discontent. Redux's post is a first step in that direction.

Unfortunately, not everybody who watches WP:RFA watches WP:BN and so Redux's fine post is not likely to be read by all who should read it. For this reason, I'm going to crosspost it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.

--Richard 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

John, you seem to have missed my point completely. Understand that the Bureaucrats will not line up and take new "oaths" because you're telling us to. As I said, all of this started as a questioning of the method used to close and decide the outcome of a specific RfA. Questioning the entire Bureaucracy, and especially whether or not we are willing to abide by consensus, is a long, long way from that: also as I said, it's a giant leap that is completely unjustified by the big picture. Understand this: no Bureaucrat believes that s/he is above consensus, but our job consists precisely of determining consensus within the context of RfAs, as well as acting on it in the best interest of the community. That is what we were appointed to do; that is what we do. Redux 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm not interested in asking a "neutral" question. I want a straight up-or-down declaration by each b'crat; I want to know who continues to serve consensus and who thinks he or she is above it. Nor am I especially interested in any b'crat definition of the admin role. I kind of object to this distraction; please don't give b'crats an excuse to avoid making their positions clear. John Reid 03:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a completely nonsensical question. A "call for this statement of fealty from our trusted servants"? Come off it. It's sheer lunacy. Bureaucrats serve the encyclopedia, not you or me. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

At the present time to use the word "trusted" does indeed seem sheer lunacy. With no attempt at explanation from the majority of them, that situation seems likely to remain. They have created a situation where comment from the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [1] will be discounted. I am not fickle or ill-informed, I am very consistent and very well informed and I would like to be even more informed by having some answers from all of them, not just the two most vocal. They can begin with - who continues to serve consensus? Giano | talk 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they all think they do. But how are you defining consensus? Kim Bruning 13:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I beg to differ -- with courtesy but most seriously. All you have done in your comment is convince me that if you were a b'crat, I'd have to ask you to stand for recall. John Reid 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You could fucking whistle. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• And you could tone down your comments. That was uncalled for. Even if John Reid was the most abbrasive person since Jack the Ripper, such comments as the one you just made are out of line here. Please calm down. --Durin 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Tony Sidaway is totally amazing [2] totally unbelievable. Giano | talk 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, do you answer to any authority -- not to an abstraction, but to any person or group of people? Or are you entirely autonomous? I'd really like to know. John Reid 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think Radiant's neutral question is helpful, but misses the point. All of us who are regulars at RfA have standards of one sort or another on what makes a good admin. The core issue here is not what our standards are. The core issue is the schism that has recently generated between the RfA regulars and the bureaucrat corps. John Reid's question, though apparently regarded as insulting, is more directly aimed at addressing the schism. The bureaucrats have largely been silent of late in this debate. Now is not the time to be silent, to hope this problem will go away if enough silence is given. I'd strongly welcome a concerted effort on the part of the bureaucrats to address the schism that has generated. --Durin 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've always been a staunch supporter of the bureaucrats, but I agree in this one that silence at this point is *not* constructive. As I recently discovered, being a bureaucrat is different from being an admin. While an admin may be "no big deal" to many people, a bureaucrat position is considered a "burden", one with a lot of work associated with it. My point here being that the issues raised recently should be addressed by bureaucrats, as interaction with the community is an important part of being one. Radiant's question was very helpful, I believe. -- RM 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp, do you endorse or dissent? John Reid 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Nichalp, for setting out your views. I wish other bureaucrats would do the same. Perhaps we need a central page for bureaucrats to state their interpretation of policy, so we know where they stand.

I would also be interested on your views on this particular RFA (you may want to read a couple of things I have written on my talk page and that of Taxman. Or possibly not...)

Please, User:John Reid, this is not a witchhunt. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It sure looks like one. - Taxman ^Talk 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No; this is a test of loyalty to our community. John Reid 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been following all of the discussions here. So far, it seems to me like an enormous generalization. All of this has been generated by a decision made in Carnildo's RfA, not by any kind of decision making pattern on the part of the Bureaucracy in general. Taxman has been addressing the criticism that the decision (and its process) sparked. He has even admitted that the way in which the decision was made was perhaps not ideal. I have no reason to believe, given all that, that this situation would be repeated in the forseeable future.
To derive from this situation a conclusion that Bureaucrats could be looking to "ignore community consensus [and rule RfA with an iron fist]" is completely unjustified. Everyone who is a regular in RfA knows how the old saying goes: "we elect Bureaucrats to make the tough decisions, determine consensus in difficult scenarios", etc. Well, sometimes, in order to do our job, we need to think outside the box, try new solutions -- as former Bureaucrat Cecropia did in putting forward the 75-80% margin of discretion for promotion in troubled RfAs. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, it doesn't. People have spoken in the sense that the solution that Taxman tried did not suit them. We hear you. It is, after all, a human process.
Without going into any specifics of Carnildo's RfA, since I wasn't involved in the process of closing that RfA, let's also not forget that those difficult RfAs can yield complicated scenarios: in extreme cases, an apparent consensus in the neighborhood of circa 60% could, in theory, result in promotion, assuming a scenario where a RfA has been spammed by sockpuppets and bad-faith or bandwagonning !votes. After going through all the participants, a Bureaucrat could arrive at a real consensus, amidst the good-faith, well-reasoned participants, that would be sufficent for promotion -- and as a matter of fact, whenever people feel that we have not done that, they protest as well, asking if all we ever do is just count votes. At the same time, if a user is promoted whose RfA had an apparent consensus of 61%, people also protest, saying that we are overlooking consensus and doing as we please. It's almost a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. But that's fine: addressing people's concerns and answering questions as to how decisions are made (or how they were made) is part of the job -- and Taxman, as the principal Bureaucrat involved in closing Carnildo's RfA, has been doing it: he has not refused to answer questions as to how or why the decision was made as it was. It comes with the territory.
However, I'm sure you will agree that it is not possible for us to do our job as you yourselves would want us to do it if, whenever a controversial decision is made, people start asking us to line up and renew our "vows" to the project officially. The bottom line is: we are here to make those decisions. The community is not only free, but in fact expected to protest if it feels that any of our decisions were not in keeping with its expectations. But to go from there to suggest that Bureaucrats could be looking to ignore consensus altogether and take over RfA entirely is a giant leap, and one that is completely unjustified by the big picture.
Let's not confuse things: the Carnildo decision was not appreciated. That's one thing. Questioning the Bureaucrats' commitment to the project, that's quite different. Redux 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Redux, do you endorse or dissent? John Reid 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John, this isn't the House Un-American Activities Committee. Please, try and remember that the bureaucrats are not on trial, and do not have to answer your questions. Maybe if you try asking in a nicer, more calm way, you'll get an answer closer to what you are looking for. However, trying to force people to answer a question isn't a productive way to discuss a topic. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John, you seem to have missed my point completely. Understand that the Bureaucrats will not line up and take new "oaths" because you're telling us to. As I said, all of this started as a questioning of the method used to close and decide the outcome of a specific RfA. Questioning the entire Bureaucracy, and especially whether or not we are willing to abide by consensus, is a long, long way from that: also as I said, it's a giant leap that is completely unjustified by the big picture. Understand this: no Bureaucrat believes that s/he is above consensus, but our job consists precisely of determining consensus within the context of RfAs, as well as acting on it in the best interest of the community. That is what we were appointed to do; that is what we do. Redux 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to be a part of any community John Reid is a part of. —Centrx→talk • 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt out of the debates, but I shall be off wikipedia till late Octobermid-Nov starting tomorrow as I will be out of town on non-wiki related stuff. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that that b'crat was kind enough to answer my question before going on holiday. And I hope that the record shall show in late October that he had a fine vacation and good weather. >Radiant< 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I had asked John to please consider ceasing this unproductive and uncivil badgering of bureaucrats. The last, above, I have just seen. I'm sorry but this revolting hectoring has to stop. Please, John, stop it. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that that b'crat was kind enough to answer my question before going on holiday. And I hope that the record shall show in late October that he had a fine vacation and good weather. >Radiant< 19:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John, now even I think you're pressing the issue too hard. WP:NOT a court of law. -- nae'blis 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop focusing on contributors as opposed to policy and content - this is just a warning to all those above who are clearly frustrated by this. This goes to Giano, Tony, and John. Please just cool off. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 19:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John, please stop. This is being disruptive and unproductive. Furthermore a bit of WP:AGF might be in order. I don't think that Nichalp is taking a break just to avoid answering you. JoshuaZ 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop it John. This is just becoming a farce.Voice-of-All 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Echo what others just said. John, if you hadn't stepped over the line before you clearly did so with the "let the record show" comment. --Durin 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Would a bureaucrat please grant the bot flag to Elissonbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights). When this is completed, please make a note here. Thanks in advance. -- RM 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. And from this point forward I'd think enough of us have Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval watchlisted that you don't have to post here to the noticeboard unless it's been way too long. I'll check it at least daily. - Taxman ^Talk 02:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was posted on that page, but no one picked it up until I posted it here. Then it happened almost immediately. Perhaps others don't care about speed, but the difference of minutes or an hour or especially a day make a huge difference to the process. Flagging bots is just one more bit of bureaucratic overhead. Perhaps the bot owner isn't ready to use the bot, but perhaps they are. A lot of bot owners have been frustrated with the speed of the process; how long it takes. There are a lot of bureaucrats who perhaps have *not* watchlisted the page. The fact is, we don't know unless they explicitly tell us. But everyone has this page watchlisted, which is why it works so quickly. The bot was flagged 105 minutes after it was approved. However it was flagged 2 minutes after I posted to this page. You'll have to forgive my frustration with this process, but the evidence speaks for itself. -- RM 12:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say but forgot, that I saw it on that page and flagged it, then I saw your post here and responded. It just happened to be when I pulled up my watchlist. In the past it seems the approvals group wasn't as active or at least was very sporadic and requests sat out for a long time. Also it seems asking a bcrat on IRC was the preferred method to grab someone fast. Now that the approvals group is more active, I plan to be too. I really do check my watchlist several times a day most days except weekends so there wouldn't usually be a significant delay even if I was the only one looking. - Taxman ^Talk 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This problem has been around for a while, even before the approval group added new members. During my RfB, there were those who treated the bot flagging as of "lesser importance" to the other bureaucrat tasks. Is that the case? I don't think it is less important, as it often has a direct influence on real wikipedia articles. I'm not pointing fingers at you, but there are a lot of inactive and semi-inactive bureaucrats who are not following this discussion and perhaps other active crats who don't have the page watchlisted. I know you do, and probably so does Redux. But I'm not convinced that the others do. And again, my point is that I think that bot flagging should be treated like closing an RfA in importance. My annoying posts here are intended to speed up the process and I think you can appreciate my intentions at least. Anyway, from now on I'll see what happens posting it just to that page. But if an approval request stays idle for longer than a couple hours or the bot owner gets restless, then I'll post a message here. Now granted I'm bickering over a couple hours, but I would be inconsistent (re: RfB comments) if I didn't think that was important anyway. -- RM 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

From my own experience, I can say that I take all 3 Bureaucrat tasks (RfA closing/promoting, renames and bot flagging) seriously. I don't view any of them as minor or undeserving of attention. Until we get the WP:CHU-like forum running, I would have to say that a quick post to our Noticeboard is still the most effective way of getting a bot flagged.
You might have noticed that Nichalp has just announced that he will be on Wikibreak until sometime in late October. Essjay has been away since mid-August. This means that, at least until late October, Taxman and I are the only Bureaucrats who are consistently active (unless Essjay returns before that). Recently, we have had Angela and Dan (Rdsmith4) do some work sporadically, but they are still not active on a regular basis -- although Dan has been taking care of renames for the last couple of weeks, so we can consider him active on that specific front. This situation may lead to a slightly prolongued delay in our tasks, so whenever necessary, it is useful to call our attention specifically to anything that might be overdue. Redux 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that there is no way around this. You and Taxman are basically right. The bottleneck right now is the number of Bureaucrats, not where the request is posted. And for the record, I made it sound like bureaucrats don't care about bot flagging. I doubt that matches with reality, and I certainly don't have a problem with bureaucrats who specialize in one area over another. Moving on... -- RM 15:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(Moved to WP:VPT) — xaosflux ^Talk 03:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be some people discontented about RFA. I haven't looked into the particulars (yet?) but I figured it might be interesting to see how the other Wikipedias handle the issue. As such, I have attempted to compile and translate a bunch of admin facts, and listed them at Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. I'm not sure if this is useful or just trivial data, but there are some interesting differences that people may want to read about. Comments welcome. >Radiant< 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just what was wanted. Great work, Radiant! Tim Smith 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion of the Carnildo promotion in the request for arbitration that is examining the behavior that followed. All bureaucrats should at least be aware of it. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano and particularly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop#Appeal_of_decisions_of_the_Bureaucrats. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 11:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to post this, but apparently FrancisTyers wanted to change his username to Francis Tyers and redirected the username and everything, but forgot to move his contributions from his old account to his new one. If a 'crat could fix this, it would be most appriciated. — Moe Epsilon 00:29 September 28 '06

He can't really move his contributions. When he requests a username change (WP:CHU), and once it is fulfilled, his contributions will be reassigned to his new username automatically. Redux 01:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped him a note about it. We can't change his username unless he requests it himself. Redux 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Barring any strong objection, I propose to grant the username "Encyclopedist" (previously used by a reformed and then relapsed vandal/troll who is now banned) to a respected contributor to the Chinese Wikipedia who goes by the same name. He has some four thousand edits to his local wiki, while our banned Encyclopedist has eight thousand to this wiki, which means that zh's Encyclopedist is set to lose his username when m:SUL is implemented.

I intend to rectify this unfortunate situation by renaming en's Encyclopedist to "Encyclopedist (banned)" or some such, and renaming zh's Encyclopedist (who has an en account, "Millionaire") to his own name. As this appears to be without precedent, I welcome comments. — Dan | talk 03:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think anyone should be using the username "Encyclopedist", just like no one should be using the username "System Administrator" or "Project Leader". It conveys a false sense of authority on a username basis alone, as if Wikipedia somehow has some official encyclopedist. --Cyde Weys 05:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, another problem is all on-wiki comments referring to the banned Encyclopedist (such as signing on talk pages, mentions in RfAr cases, etc) will now point to the new one. Unless you're willing to use something like AWB, write or get someone to write a bot to fix all those links and get a consensus on how they should read, then usurping an account with so many edits isn't a good idea methinks. - Taxman ^Talk 12:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Has the Chinese editor using Encyclopedist requested something of this nature, or are you proposing to take it on your own initiative? --Michael Snow 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I must point out, also, that we have denied all requests to usurp usernames in recent history. The most common cases where people who wanted a taken username that, although registered, had never been used by whoever "took" it. And there were also rarer cases of people who wanted usernames that had been banned or blocked because they had been used to vandalize. The point is, we didn't cut anyone any slack, because we don't have a specific policy for allowing a username to be usurped. If we were to finally draft said policy, it would be one thing, but making private exceptions does not sound like a good idea to me. Furthermore, I would also have to wonder if the Chinese contributor is willing (or if he already does, of course) to start contributing regularly here or if he just wants to establish a "Wikimedia-wide" identity, since, in light of what Taxman said, and what I've just said, it just sounds like a lot of trouble just to link his Encyclopedist-named user page to his userpage on zh.wp and do minor work every now and then.
Here's a possible alternative solution: although we normally reject renames where the selected new name is too close to existing accounts, in this particular case he could be renamed to something like "Encyclopedist zh" (not the most creative, I know, but you get the picture), which is close enough -- and plus he's going to be highlighting his main identity as a respected contributor with the zh.wp anyways. Technically, this wouldn't be usurping the existing username, and it would save a lot of trouble (mainly that of going through what Taxman described). Redux 22:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that when universal login comes along, because Encyclopedist on zh has less edits than Encyclopedist on en, he will lose his username across all projects, including his home of zh. Unfortunate, but I don't think we need to worry about it just yet. Universal login has been delayed and the plans changed for a long time (the notice saying a final push was underway was added in July), and it would probably be best to wait until we know it is going to happen. The current plan provides plenty of time for resolution of conflicts. By that time we may have a more developed usurping policy anyway. the wub "?!" 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to note that I have had a conflict with the banned user. Nobody should be named Encyclopedist. This is an encyclopedia; that username is an unacceptable assumption of superiority; also, too general, like an image named Image:Image.jpg. Let the username stand where it is as a badge of shameful hubris and a caution to others who assert too much. John Reid 02:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

John I think that's a bit of an overreaction. Encyclopedist doesn't infer, imply or assert any superiority at all over our users, its not compariable with System administrator or Project leader as Cyde has stated either to my mind. My only hesitation is the usurp precident. When I was made an administrator I requested my username change from GIen to Glen so they'd be no confusion (and Glen was registered years ago with zero edits, and the crats werent terribly keen about doing it despite the legitimate rationale for the request... Another user have his request so readily accepted over another user with contribs is a tad discouraging, and I'd imagine other users would/will feel the same way. Bear in mind that crats will have to justify declining future apps who will ask why they are not extended the same courtousy. Just my $0.02 Glen 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As there's no consensus for Dan's proposal, I've renamed the user as User:Pedist, as per the original request. Warofdreams talk 17:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This username was usurped by Raul654 from a user who had not edited or responded to my request to usurp it (left on his talk page three months prior), and had been registered for a year or two. — Werdna talk criticism 14:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I recently noticed that there is precedent for re-sysopping of users who had voluntarily desysopped themselves in uncontroversial circumstances. I've been wondering if this escape valve has led to the what seems like a rise in recent voluntary desysoppings. (Mention of counter-example.)

Long story short - My editing has ramped back up and and would like the mop back, but would like to offer myself up as a test case if the crats would like to state or set up a procedure so admins know their options. I hope to add a relevant section to Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, as it took me literally an hour to re-find the two examples I linked above. If everyone is happy with the way things are - requests to user talk - that's fine, but I figured some clarity would be in order. If there is crat consensus that the whole idea was a mistake and should not be repeated, I'm fine with that too. Cheers, BT 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone would agree that Doc gave up his bit in uncontroversial circumstances - he was under a weeklong block at the time for pranks (which may well have been excessive, I don't remember exactly what he did). Personally I would have strongly preferred him to go through a new RFA. But I'm no bureaucrat. Haukur 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's general consensus that truly uncontroversial voluntary de-adminnings can be re-adminned without an RfA. For Wmarsh, as I said in making the promotion I was too tired when he asked to feel like I could make the judgement when there was a tiny bit of controversy. The problem is that good admins are bound to irritate some people even when correctly applying policy. Perhaps that could be solved by lowering the threshold in RfA for re-adminning. - Taxman ^Talk 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone was de-adminned for cause, lowering the threshold is the last thing we'd want to do. That said, if an editor in good standing voluntarily gives it up, it's reasonable to give it back upon asking. If someone resigns amidst controversy, we should think twice before considering them "in good standing". Friday (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

BT is an uncontroversial case and should be resysopped in my opinion. Some relevant links: KOS, Doc, policy ideas, resysop history. NoSeptember 13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this and related issues on the Workshop of the so-called Giano arbitration case (see above), and it appears that it may be addressed in the decision. Newyorkbrad 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevant sections of the ArbCom proposed ruling mentioned by Newyorkbrad are Return to administrative status of desysopped administrators and Return of access levels. Being someone who goes looking for the guideline page when faced with a new situation, I was a little put off that the only mention I could find of this auto-resysopping was in some comments I had chanced upon at RFA, but it looks like that is about to be rectified. In the meantime, I'll add a brief note to the guide that such a thing exists for all those admins who spend less time than I do looking over RFAs, and just make a request per precedent. Cheers, BT 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the section Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#Re-adminship. Most of it is a restatement of current process, as far as I could figure. Based on Taxman's comment above, I embellished a bit and added a "if one crat can't do it then they can tell you to go to another" clause that people may want reworded or removed. - BT

That policy has now been somewhat reshaped. As this seems to me to be an uncontroversial case, I have resysoped BanyanTree, in line with the newly stated policy and several precedents. Warofdreams talk 02:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:CRAT, bureaucrats may grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community". That goes for resysopping too. For bureaucrats to know the wishes of the community, the community must have a chance to express those wishes. A full-blown RfA is not necessarily needed for every resysopping, but some form of community input is a requirement. Even when the specific circumstances under which a former administrator was desysopped were uncontroversial, the user may still lack consensus due to broader, more longstanding concerns, or due to events since the desysopping. Bureaucrats can check for specific controversies, but cannot reliably gauge the overall wishes of the community without actually consulting it.

As noted above, one user who gave up his adminship shortly before being blocked for disruption was later resysopped just two hours after requesting it on a bureaucrat's talk page, with no community consultation whatsoever. WP:CRAT does not allow bureaucrats that level of discretion. At a minimum, the community must have the opportunity to see and discuss every resysopping request. One approach would be for such requests to be made in a public location—perhaps here at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, or in a separate section at RfA—for all to see. If after a week there are no objections, the user can be resysopped; otherwise, they must pass an RfA. Tim Smith 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, would the bureaucrats be willing to close any requests for de-adminship and declare whether there was consensus? Hiding Talk 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't have the tools to de-admin, so we don't need to be the ones to make the call. Though if the stewards would like our input into whether we think there is consensus we could certainly give it. As of yet I don't think there's any consensus requests for de-adminship process, so I'm sure we'd all like to wait until there was. - Taxman ^Talk 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't have the tools, but my understanding of m:Steward policies is that stewards aren't allowed to make the call. They can only desysop according to the result of an election or consensus. So we'd need someone to determine that, and it makes sense to get a bureaucrat to do that if they are willing. As you can probably guess, this is the first piece in the puzzle towards getting a consensus for some de-admin process. However, there's no point taking it any further if no-one is prepared to close the debate, so I thought I'd start at the beginning and work my way to the end. If there was community consensus behind a process, would bureaucrats be prepared to close such debates and declare where the consensus lay? You seem to indicate you will, if my reading of you is right. Hiding Talk 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well whatever the system, yes, I'd be more than willing to judge the consensus as long as some agreed upon process existed. I would think other bcrats would be too. - Taxman ^Talk 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that our bureaucrats would be the right people to decide whether there is a commmunity consensus in this context, and trust that they would be willing to pick up that baton.

I have written before that I think we need to relax our admin standards - admin tools (such as they are) are not gold-plated, nor weapons of mass destruction, nor in short supply, nor a shiny badge (nor fez and small car): they just make it easier to edit and defend the encyclopedia. So, any editor with, say, 3 months and 1,000 main space edits could ask to be promoted seven days after request, unless someone has a material objection, with the materiality of objections to be judged by the bureaucrats. This would make WP:RFA a bit like WP:FAC, only with the presumption being to promote a candidate.

However, in that world, we would need a simple de-admining process too. It would make sense that, say, five admins in good standing could require another admin to have their adminship confirmed in a similar fashion at any time, provided that the confirmation could not be started until, say, 6 months have passed since the previous one (and not counting the initial promotion). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur! Highway ^Daytrippers 14:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I was thinking of going was like an RFC, where it had to be certified within 24 hours or it was deleted. I figured the numbers and user type to certify could be hashed out in the details, but my basic idea was to have a 24 hour certification period and then a ten day discussion, with a bureaucrat closing discussion and declaring consensus, and then listing at the stewards page if the consensus was to remove powers. I agree there should then be a six month period during which no request to regain the powers or no request to have the user re-confirmed could take place. The only worry I have on this is that the discussions could turn ugly. I think we would have to make it a very clear principle that discussions should not become a battleground and that if a discussion becomes too fractious there is a right to close it early as fractious, or something. Hiding Talk 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is any process for deadminning is likely to bring out of the wordwork all the people who have been rightfully sanctioned by an admin. There would almost be guaranteed to be ugliness in any such process. That's why it's been opposed so much in the past. I'd like to see something, because I think it could actually help make it a lower risk to promote, but I'm not sure it's reallistic. I fully support efforts to try to come up with something people agree on. - Taxman ^Talk 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We should keep the promotion process separate from the demotion process. RfCs don't lead to adminship, sometimes they do lead to ArbCom cases. We shouldn't have the oppotunity arise for venue shopping. For example, if someone wanted admin X desysopped, should they be able to choose whether it is more likely for admin X to be desysopped in an ArbCom case or more likely by a process of community de-adminship discussion? Obviously, they would choose whatever process looks better to achieve their goal. We should leave desysopping to ArbCom. If ArbCom wants to invite community input, that would be OK, but it should still be conducted by ArbCom. We don't need to create a situation where ArbCom and bureaucrats have overlapping jurisdictions. Keep promotion and demotion as separate processes. NoSeptember 16:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a nifty thing you got up there for the RfAs! Anyway, STBot did something like 3000 edits last night before I realized itdoesn't have a botflag, it has been approved (link above) and can someone possibly do that? Thanks! ST47Talk 10:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this one must have slipped through the cracks. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBot. -- RM 11:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot has been flagged. Redux 12:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Previously, bureaucrats would not change usernames for users with few or no edits. I suggest this needs to change now since users can no longer simply make a new account for themselves if the new name they want is too similar to their current name. For example, The14thgGOD made a typo in his name but was not able to create an account with a new name due to this error:

"Login Error - The name "The14thGOD" is too similar to the existing account "The14thgGOD". Please choose another name."

So, I believe we need to be more accepting of such requests from now on, even for users with few edits. Angela. 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, we are getting an increasing number of these requests, and I've been rejecting them, as new users can easily choose a completely different name. If we're going to change all these, we need more people working on WP:CHU. I wonder if the software could be altered to permit similar names to be created, provided that the request came within a day or two of the first name being created, and from the same IP address? Warofdreams talk 03:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also blocking completely valid names, like saying omes is too ornes. Since ornes isn't especially active here anyway, I see no need to block the name omes. Maybe this change is a good reason to get some more bureaucrats. People often refuse to support new bureaucrat applications because we apparently don't need any more, but that's not the case right now. Angela. 13:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried creating an account while logged in, and while the name was very similar to the one I use, the software apparently accepted it [3]. It could be that the check is waived in that case. If so, it could be a solution to direct users to Special:Userlogin&type=signup to create the new account. Tizio 13:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins are now excluded from this restriction on making names, so if there are no bureaucrats to change the username, an admin can create it for someone instead. Angela. 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion to deal with the situation while the software's still refusing similar names: we could amend the instructions on WP:CHU (even though we often get cases where people clearly didn't read the instructions before posting their request) to indicate to people that, if they have created an account recently, edited very little or not at all with it, that they should simply create a new account with the desired name. We would include a reference to the fact that, if the name is too close to the existing account (e.g. typos in username creation and the like), than the user should request the rename, including this reasoning in the "reason" line of the request. If we could confirm what Tizio just said as a normal event, and not just a stroke of luck, then this should go into the instructions; we wouldn't have to rename accounts with too few edits, and my previous suggestion would not be necessary.
On another note, I have been leaving renames to Warofdreams and Pakaran recently (although Pakaran hasn't been around recently), but if the page's traffic is starting to become a little overwhelming, I will return to attending to requests. Cheers, Redux 14:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I asked at the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Recycled_Usernames whether usernames get recycled, somehow. One of the usernames that are registered but never used is, unfortunately, Mysha, the username I use on nl: and fy:. At that page I was pointed to this page as a place to ask. Is there a way you people can help me? Mysha (nl)

Comment User:Mysha on en would have been deleted under WP:DUU90 if it had been implemented, as far as I as a non-admin can tell from the publicly visible logs (DUU90 gained consensus on Wikipedia but was rejected by the devs). --ais523 13:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Usurpation. Angela. 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right that a username could be in use for the purpose of preferences only, though I expect most people would sooner or later correct a typo if they saw one. But it would become a bit of a mess if I, myself, tried to find out. After all, to do so, I would need a username. Mysha (nl) 15:06, November 15, 2006

By the looks of things, it wasn't transcluded onto WP:RfA when it was created on November 3. It now should be closed (as if 10 hours or so ago), however I have no idea what you guys want to do about it - only 3 !votes because of the lack of transclusion. I'm thinking restart and relist, but you guys are the ones in the know, so I'll leave it for you to fix. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here either, but certainly this can't be closed today at 2/0/2. If the user wants to pursue adminship, presumably he would have noticed that no one was commenting or !voting. Having double-checked, it appears that this isn't actually listed as a current RfA, although it's formatted as one, including the expiration date. Not quite sure what's happening here. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA's clock begins running when it is transcluded to RFA, so ask the candidate to list it. It won't be closed as-is, because technically, the RFA hasn't even started. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the time-stamp at the top indicating that it expired a few hours ago is a placeholder? Newyorkbrad 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for getting confused about how to use the RfA interface - I didn't realise I had to add the link to the page. I have now done so, and have extended the time on it to 1 week from now - was this acceptable? Walton monarchist89 17:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think perhaps there's reason to remove the bit from Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Konstable / AlternativeAccountK.

Konstable has left Wikipedia for the time being, but in the process has used a number of sockpuppets (AltUser (talk · contribs), AlternativeAccountK (talk · contribs)), got them banned and then used admin privileges to unblock one of the accounts. I'm certain that Konstable could again be a useful admin and help in the building of this encyclopedia, but on his return should re-run for admin if he so wishes the extra responsibility. Thanks/wangi 00:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Crats can't remove admin powers, only grant them. You want Requests for permissions on meta, and a Steward will take a look. the wub "?!" 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, wasn't sure. /wangi 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't make a request there; only the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales can authorize desysopping a user. Please don't take up the time of the stewards with requests to desysop users; take your case to the Arbitration Committee. Essjay (Talk) 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, right... I'll remove it then. We've a pretty clear case of somebody who is disillusioned, has made some mistakes and wants to take a break for the time being. If they come back then the sysop bit should be requested again... So, what's the procedure here? Thanks/wangi 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The admin would have to at least be desysopped for it to be possible to make the person request the sysop flag again. If Konstable was to be desysopped, it would probably be up to the bureaucrats or the arbitration committee to determine if the sysop flag has to be re-requested. DarthVader 01:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, i've posted to WP:RFAr. /wangi 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To help clarify: The only way to have a sysop flag removed is for the user to voluntarily request it, or for the Arbitration Committee (or Jimbo, who outranks the AC) to order it done. A steward would then remove it from the user. If a user is desysopped by the AC, there is generally a provision in the decision that directs how the user may regain the flag; it may be decided they are not permitted to regain it without special permission from the AC, they may have to go back to RFA, or the adminship might be restored automatically at a certain point in time.

With regard to those who voluntarily give up thier sysop flag, the Arbitration Commmittee has ruled as follows:

"Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. User who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion." (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano.)

Hopefully this will help clear up the confusion. Essjay (Talk) 02:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The only other situation in which stewards can remove sysop privileges from an account is where the user clearly goes insane (similar to what happened with Wonderfool or Dangherous at Wiktionary, see here) and you can persuade a steward or a developer that it is an emergency. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we're safe from that, whatever it is it's not a critical emergency. Thanks/wangi 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, I hadn't properly read the AN thread just the request here, so got the impression that it was more of an emergency than it was. While we're discussing this I'll point out that Jimbo is a steward, so can carry out desysoppings himself (as he did during the paedophilia userbox mess). Danny is also a steward, and can desysop for contravention of WP:OFFICE actions. the wub "?!" 14:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a break to study for exams, but after some thinking and peering into C:CSD, I think it would be beneficial for the project if I do not yield the buttons totally. Hence I would like to request for reinstatement of my sysop bit. Regards, Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. After 31 October I began using a sockpuppet Kavadi carrier (talk · contribs) to make edits. I hereby declare that the account has not been used to make edits that violate policy. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Can you also rename me to Kimchi.sg and rename "Kimchi.sg" (which I created after the first rename) to "Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh"? Thanks! (cross-posted from WP:CHU) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't so long ago that you requested Kimchi.sg be renamed to the current account. Now you want it changed back? You do reallize they are murder on the servers right, with thousands of database hits? Would you consider just keeping the current name since you've asked to be changed to that already? Also, the last time I renamed an existing account to clear it as a target for another rename, it didn't work. The contributions got split between the accounts. You can always sign as Kimchi.sg. - Taxman ^Talk 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will drop the rename request. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Per your representation that you left on uncontroversial terms and confirming that, I've resysopped you. Away with you and may many backlogs be cleared. :) - Taxman ^Talk 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this username violates WP:UN: ° (talk ·  contribs). S/He's had it since around May 2005. What do we need to do to get it changed? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As they appear to be a constuctive editor, the simplest way would be to have them request a change themselves. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been 10 days since this editor was notified that his/her username needed to be changed in order to comply with WP:UN, yet there has been no response. Therefore, I am requesting that this editor's name be changed for them, perhaps to the name of that character, as they don't seem to care either way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally, when a username violates policy and the user is unresponsive to requests for him/her to request a rename for themselves, the account suffers a temporary block, until the user does request a rename — the account is unblocked when the user acknowledges the need for a rename and requests to be unblocked in order to post at WP:CHU. We can try another time, let the person know that the account would be blocked until the owner compromises to requesting a rename. See what happens. Except for usernames that are created as a serious offense themselves, which are changed forcibly, without consulting the owner (and usually indefblocked), that's how we get an unresponsive user to ask for the rename, since we still need the user to select which username s/he would like (or we might have to do another rename later). Let us know if there are exceptional circumstances in this case, though. Redux 16:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll post another note to the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week with no response, so I've blocked him/her. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I've seen that there is a Wikipedia:Usurpation proposed policy, that I can not preempt as I don't have an en:-account. So, considering that the discussion has now reached the "Hello, is anyone going to something with this?" stage, what should I do? Is waiting for a policy that apparently isn't going anywhere at the moment my only hope for becoming User:Mysha? Mysha (nl) 10:33, November 20, 2006

It looks like it's not going anywhere. But read up on m:SUL, when that comes in, you'll likely get your username if you meet the criteria there. So just create any related username and sign as Mysha in your signature. - Taxman ^Talk 13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly related question, what would be the general policy on naming conflicts? Would users have the option of "usurping" a seldom-used username, if they have a well-known username in other Wikimedia projects? Would renames here affect usernames on all other sister projects as well? Titoxd^(?!?) 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what SUL is set up to currently do, though who knows exactly how the code will roll out. Since that's not 100% locked down, I can't really answer the last one. I haven't looked that closely into it. - Taxman ^Talk 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've followed the advice here and added to the confusion, both for the Wikipedia and myself, by adding yet another Mysha name. Apparently, it'll have to do for now. Mysha 14:34, November 23, 2006

There is what I think is a troll vote on my RfA by Auroranorth (talk · contribs). The vote is: Oppose, coona. Auroranorth 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC). I think it is a troll vote due to the contributions (specifically the page moves and redirects) from the 21st of november [4]. Judging by prior contrubutions I suspect the account may be compromised, and possibly used by someone else, not the actual account holder. I was wondering what to do about the vote on my RfA and wanted an opinion on the possobility of the account being compromised. 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's just a kid (he identifies on his userpage as a primary school student). He just seems to like opposing people for any old reason. He opposed my RfA as well, on the grounds that I (according to him) hadn't contributed to the article space, even though there were links in the nom to articles I'd written. After my RfA was over, I discussed it with him and he claimed his real reason for opposing was he knows someone called "Sarah Ewart" IRL and he thought I was the same person...I think he's just a kid playing wiki-games. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Viridae^Talk 05:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears he's been blocked; I checked into the matter a bit deeper, and I don't see any evidence of a compromise in the account. I'll do an official strike-out on the vote. Essjay (Talk) 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

has been withdrawn and needs closing. Thanks. - crz crztalk 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Closed. --Durin 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just posted this: [5] on Jimbo's talk page. In the case of Bhouston, I think it was a simple admin error to delete a page that consisted of a redirect. In the case of Homey, apparently someone changed his username after his user page had already been deleted. Because of that, hundreds of Homey signatures linked to a page which had no "User contributions" link at the side. I think it has to be explained to people who have left or are planning to leave that they can have their name changed, or they can have their previous user page deleted, but not both. Kla'quot 20:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Or am I out to lunch here? Is it ever a standard practice to delete user pages that consist of redirects to new usernames? Kla'quot 09:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Standard (as in, done automatically in every case), no. However, no user is required to have a userpage, and those who have had renames and don't wish their new names to be associated with thier old ones are not required to do so. Anyone sufficiently interested in the history of a given user will figure it out. Essjay (Talk) 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm not sure what to do with xxx and xxx. Kla'quot 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "do with"? Essjay (Talk) 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there should be a redirect page from one to the other. Based on this discussion, the answer is obviously no. Thanks Essjay and Thatcher131 for explaining this. I'll post a quick note on Jimbo's talk page to clear up whatever confusion I may have caused there. Kla'quot 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A former user who left under unfortunate circumstances asked to have his accounts renamed and his user and talk pages deleted for privacy reasons. Jimbo agrees (per e-mail) and Angela applied the name change. It is true that old talk page comments will now direct to a user with a blank user page and no contributions, but how often would someone need to contact an editor about 9-24month-old talk page comments? I don't see an issue here. Thatcher131 14:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of contacting the editor. It's a question of making the record of community decisions transparent. The community has an interest in knowing what kinds of contributors have been granted sysop status, what kinds of contributors have been sanctioned, etc. People reading through comments in old article talk pages, and user talk pages also click the links in signatures to evalute what the person's biases may be. You lose some of that transparency when you break links to the list of user contributions. However if we feel that privacy concerns take priority over the loss of transparency, I have no problem with that. Kla'quot 20:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I opened an RFC on Admin PMA for misuse of blocking; he has decided to voluntarily resign the sysop bit. It turns out he has twice before resigned and then regained his sysop bit (once reflected in the meta log [6] and once here. Arbcom established in the Giano case that admins who resign their mop "under controversial circumstances" must go through RFA to get it back. Would you consider this RFC to be "controversial circumstances?" If so, please note this somewhere. If not, I guess we have to file an arbitration request to clarify his status? Thatcher131 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would, yes. Normally, we only forgo a new RfA if the user resigned for personal reasons, without any kind of incident (burnout, wikibreak, etc.) or, at the very, very least, if the user resigned the status without anyone even complaining about anything (although that would still depend heavily on the circumstances immediately before the resignation). In a case such as this, however, I would only contemplate reinstating sysophood without a new RfA if the RfC turned out to be completely bogus. But that happens when trolls start the procedure, and that is not the case here, so the existence of a RfC for misuse of the tools definitely makes this a controversial circumstance, precluding the regaining of sysophood without a new RfA. It's not a question of opinion, there is no legitimacy for reinstating without the community's sayso. Redux 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please close this RfA? Thx! - crz crztalk 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm... is something the matter? - crz crztalk 03:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the current Rfa requests has been publiscised by its nominator : [7]. Not sure what should be done with this, as I was under the impression that canvassing for votes/publiscising your RfA is very frowned upon or against policy (not sure which) but it isnt the person under consideration that added that ntoice, but the nominator. Opinions? Viridae^Talk 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not against policy to "advertise", although we discourage it because it is really frowned upon. Normally, doing it will attract more opposition than it will support. Making a public announcement in an open forum is not the same as rallying people to vote any specific way by going to their talk pages and "drafting" them personally. The latter is not tolerated; the first is, at the most, a potentially harmful, albeit "legal", strategy. Redux 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for the new buttons :) Viridae^Talk 21:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#24_hour_extension_incorrectly_implemented. This probably needs fixing rather urgently. Carcharoth 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Since it's been corrected with time to spare in relation to the new deadline (about 14 hours), and I would assume everyone undestood that a 24-hour extension from my edit meant 3:45 UTC on the 29th, especially since the RfA was left open, it would appear that no damage has been done. Redux 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC and Renesis13 are past their closing times now. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Both attended to. Thanks. Redux 22:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see Bluemoose (talk · contribs), aka Martin, has left Wikipedia since 1 December 2006:

I am changing my password to something I can't remember, so this will definitely be my last edit. [8]

I don't know about procedures re. his adminship, not even whether a stale user account should be robbed from admin privileges? There are some ramifications: Bluebot (talk · contribs) is a bot operated by Bluemoose, but apparently stopped operating 9 November 2006 (see contribs of the bot). Bluebot and Bluemoose are both accounts registered at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage (listing on that page means the account is "AWB-enabled"). So I thought, I leave a note here: bureaucrats are wise enough to know what to do next (if anything). Maybe I should leave a similar note at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. --Francis Schonken 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's not policy to remove admin rights from inactive accounts because enough people don't feel it's a problem I guess. I don't happen to agree, but such as it is. So all I did was remove bot status. If he wants it back he won't have any problem asking I'm sure. The AWB checkpage is up to them if they want to do anything. Maybe it would be worth looking through all those with bot flags to look for indefinitely inactive users. Perhaps a bot could do that? :) - Taxman ^Talk 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the borked RfA parsing and the archiver is now updated. The vet info tab on RfA history pages is also on all ArbCom vote pages. The script is still here. Voice-of-All 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

re the above thread on WP:AN/I - User:Husnock (an admin account) has both unblocked himself after being blocked for disruption, and given somebody else his password to access the account within the last few hours, both after claiming to have left the project. A bureaucrat may consider stepping in asap and desysopping, as the account is compromised. Proto::► 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That needs a steward as far as I know. I think Bureaucrats cann only add the sysop flag. Viridae^Talk 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Viridae is correct. Bureaucrats can only increase the access level of a user (to admin or to Bureaucrat), but not remove rights. A request needs to be posted on m:RfP (a forum on the Meta-Wiki where Stewards fulfill those requests) or, in emergencies, one may also try to find a Steward on IRC channels (especially #wikimedia-stewards and #wikimedia). Redux 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An emergency desysopping has apparently now been performed, pending an arbitration case filed this morning. See discussion on the Requests for Arbitration page. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, people! This RfA concluded successfully three-and-a-half hours ago. Is someone available to close it out and upgrade Dina's user rights, please? Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Redux is closing it right now. :) Newyorkbrad 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, right as I was typing out the request - perfect timing! :-) (aeropagitica) 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for the note. :-) Redux 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How come the bot creation log is in spanish or something now? — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 05:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good question. I'm going to ask in #wikimedia-tech. Essjay (Talk) 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting an immediate answer, but looking at SVN, it looks like leon checked in a lot of Portugese localisation patches about 8 hours ago, so I'm wondering if maybe it's Portugese... Essjay (Talk) 06:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Brion is on it now. I'm guessing the Portugese localization patches were the reason. Essjay (Talk) 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say portugese, but I thought it was spanish. No worry! Very speedy work, top marks Essjay :) — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 06:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the sake of curiosity, it was indeed Portuguese. More specifically, European Portuguese. Redux 14:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, this is caused by my fault. My text editor crashed under my translations and a sleepy dev [:)] have commited my changes. 555pt 15:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see comment/question on it's talk page. - jc37 22:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Tangobot parses this table every hour. But it looks like something is wrong, so I suggest you take it up with User:Tangotango. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by banned user removed.

If you want to raise awareness amidst admins to any issue, then you do need to take this to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Bureaucrat tools can't help you with any of it, and it is not our job to "oversee" the administrators. Redux 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did post it there. I'm trying to understand the hierarchy a bit, but I wasn't assuming that bureaucrats were overseeing admins. I thought perhaps I'd get more of those with checkuser authority who don't seem to have a noticeboard. I also think bureaucrats may have the know-how to understand the issue better than the average admin and could help get the word out.

Actually, the majority of the Bureaucrats do not have CheckUser access, although some do. The best place to reach a larger number of users with this permission is to post on the talk page of the Requests for CheckUser forum. Redux 13:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That was banned user Cplot. No wonder why he needs this stuff. MER-C 13:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Redux 13:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This closed over twelve hours ago as of this timestamp but a Bureaucrat hasn't removed it from the RfA listing and tidied the loose ends up. I don't want to go 'out of process' by doing this myself unless a Bureaucrat approves of this action. If not, could someone take a look, please? Regards, (aeropagitica) 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. Will be closing momentarily. Thanks. Redux 12:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed. Redux 13:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! (aeropagitica) 15:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucrats, I've created a new template for use on WP:CHU. I've posted a somewhat "lengthier" explanation here. Redux 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Per: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37 - 2, is there a further step I need to take (besides adding myself to the List and/or the Category)? (Cross-posted to Taxman's talk page as well.) - jc37 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Looks like Taxman closed the RfA but forgot to "push the button". Sorry about that. I've done the promotion now. Redux 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyking (talk · contribs) was "emergency desysopped" last September for his willingness to post deleted content. This desysopping was fairly controversial, as Everyking never actually divulged such content. Also, the Arbitration Committee was never very clear as to whether this desysopping was temporary or not. Now that the "emergency" has long passed, would it be appropriate to speedily resysop Everyking? Or should he go through an RfA again? --Ixfd64 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the only person to describe it as an "emergency" desysopping was an opponent of it. The decision at the time was that Everyking would be desysopped and would be able to seek community approval to regain adminship (that is, an RfA). Warofdreams talk 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the arbitrators stated at the time that Everyking had been "immediately desysopped" based on a perceived loss of trust. Normally, the ArbCom would desysop only after an actual arbitration case was filed and completed, which was never done, so this indicates that the desysopping was ordered by ArbCom on an emergency basis rather than in the regular course, although that terminology may not have been officially used.

As I understand it, Everyking could seek resysopping either through RfA, or by application to ArbCom itself (although I think the latter would be unlikely to be granted). Note that Everyking did try an RfA soon after the desysopping, which was closed as unsuccessful. Newyorkbrad 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy re-sysopping would not be appropriate. The formal and informal guidelines for that are that the circumstances of the de-syopping were uncontroversial. That is clearly not the case here. I had the same understanding of the various discussions as Warofdreams; community approval through RfA would be required. - Taxman ^Talk 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ProtectionBot is a proposed adminbot entering trials. See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot. I would ask the bureaucrats to consider sysop flagging the bot account for the purposes of the trial so that I can segregate its actions from my own admin actions. If the more than two dozen people supporting the adminbot aren't already enough, we can come back and have an RFA for it later. Dragons flight 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Aggressive canvassing is a policy violation, and I would think that you would know better. Dragons flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has canvassed for this bot heavily across many pages, in a way directly in contravention of WP:SPAM and an Arbitration Committee decision cited therein. I'm disappointed in you, Dragons flight. I thought you knew better. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I've never posted about it on a user talk page. I've brought it up twice each at Talk:Main Page and WP:AN and both times were directly following the kinds of main page vandalism this bot is intended to prevent. Once also at WT:POTD following changes made there that caused main page vandalism and also would have impacted the proposed function of the bot. I consider trying to get input regarding an adminbot running on the main page from admins and people watching the main page to be common sense, and the replies you got at ANI clearly agree with me. Dragons flight 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As this has not been responded to by a bureaucrat, I am going to go ahead run the trial over my normal admin account even though this will make it harder for me and others to distinguish my regular activities from those of the bot. Dragons flight 22:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot

There are now over 10,000 words used in response to oppose votes. While I understand that some people feel a sense of urgancy, I'm very concerned about the de facto canvassing followed by the agressive "must explain every oppose in exacting detail." What level of support will the cats be looking for in this promotion? - brenneman 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed many of those 10,000 words in the oppose section, I would just like to point out that it is my right to discuss the issues on RFA and to participate in the consensus discussions. I question of what value it is to talk merely about how many words were used in the discussion. As far as I can tell, the more discussing that is going on, the better. I also question the use of the term "de facto canvassing" — so no actual canvassing has occurred? This was already examined at WP:ANI and I think we mostly agreed that whatever Dragons flight said did not meet the guidelines of what canvassing is defined as on Wikipedia. He was in no way, shape, or form delivering a copied message to multiple people, merely arguing in support of ProtectionBot, which I feel is his right as its programmer. --Cyde Weys 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply think you're being over-eager in you argumentation. As exemplified here. I'm leaving this page now, hoping only for a response from the cats on the level of support. - brenneman 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't matter anymore. Too bad. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"too bad?" It looks like we get the main page protected without the controversy of sysopping a bot. Looks like a win-win. Thatcher131 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of policy for under what conditions we will give admin tools to bots, but I think an attempt at establishing policy will just be a re-run of the mess of the last two bot RfAs. NoSeptember 09:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

After many months of discussion and consensus building, and an intensive month-long campaign to raise awareness and involve as many interested parties as possible, I have taken the stop of declaring that consensus has been reached to adopt Wikipedia:Usurpation. As such, I have created Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations as a draft of the process for making such requests; I have also created two templates to be used for doing so. I encourage the other bureaucrats who are active in renaming users (and would presumably be active there as well) to take a careful look at it and see if I have missed anything or if there are any features we should incorporate. I'm sure that approximately a month from now we will all be quite busy with the first round of usurpations.

I've also asked that users not use the talk page of the request page for discussing usurpation in general; I've asked that discussion on usurpation take place on the talk page of the usurpation policy, while discussion of the format of the request page takes place on the request page's talk. I would ask similarly here, that users take any comments about usurpation to Wikipedia talk:Usurpation and any comments on the usurpation request page to Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations. Essjay (Talk) 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(I've corrected two links in your comment) I've started the usurpation-request-talk-page off by making some suggestions for tweaks to the process. --ais523 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I've watchlisted the page. Redux 12:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up... a mini-backlog has begun to accumulate at WP:RCU. I suppose all the bureaucrats are still wrapping up their New Year's celebrations... -- tariqabjotu 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:CU (Changing username), not WP:RCU (Requests for CheckUser) Prodego ^talk 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Prodego, I believe you mean WP:CHU. WP:CU is the Cleanup forum. ;-) Redux 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. At least we all got something to do. ;-) Prodego ^talk 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant WP:RCU, although WP:CHU is probably worse. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Only a handful of the Bcrats also have CheckUser access — of the active Bcrats who have never been on ArbCom, it's basically myself and Essjay. The tool is not part of the Bureaucrat access level, but rather distinct. Arbitrators are the ones more commonly given access to the tool, so this note would probably be more effective if posted to the talk page of the ArbCom project page, where it might draw the attention of a larger number of users with access to the tool. Redux 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU seems to be suffering from Essjay-itis, just like WP:RFCU; ie. Essjay is on Wikibreak, so it backlogs. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? CHU's Essjay is inflamed? --Rory096 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Knock-knock. I do exist! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; as I said not too long ago on WT:RFA, there are plenty of bureaucrats who tend to get shut out because there are a couple of us who hog all the work. Nichalp is one of those, as is Warofdreams, and they always demonstrate their exceptional capability wheneveer one of us isn't stealing all the opportunities. Thank you Nichalp and Warofdreams. Essjay (Talk) 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's just I tend to notice things like this when Essjay goes missing for some reason. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from WP:CHU

Qzzz → っ (review previous change)

• Current name: Qzzz (talk • contribs)
• Requested name: っ (change username)

There is no Changing Username Review, so I'm bringing this up on this page.

This user was forced to change their username due to a misguided en.wikipedia policy that previously stated that non-latin usernames are not permitted. However, this is the same user across many wikimedia projects:

m:Requests_for_permissions#User:っ

Note that this username is perfectly correct on this user's home wiki (ja.wikipedia).

Consensus on meta between several wiki communites has it that this forced name change should not happen. Bureaucrats and stewards on other wikis have stated that they are loath to accept it. When Single User Login is introduced, the SUL system and policy will -among many things, as part of its normal function- enforce reinstatement of this username on en.wikipedia in software. We are in the process of revising en.wikipedia policy to bring it in line.

In the mean time, the old username should be reinstated as quickly as possible, if only because otherwise the SUL-changeover will make a change harder at a later date. (IIRC it would create a new account っ, but leave all edits attributed to Qzzz, if that account still existed at that time).

I think that we should not accept any further requests based on the now hopefully deprecated non-latin name policy, as per the request by Aphaia to all wiki-communities on meta.

See also: discussion at Wikipedia talk:Username#Non-latin characters and Unified Login

If nescessary, please also contact this user. In fact, that would probably be a good idea. :-)

Feel free to contact me for more information, if available.

Kim Bruning 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for this request. +sj + 07:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd like to request changing the username back to "っ".--っ (Tsutsu) 05:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 Not done I do oppose the name change, and have stated it in the discussion page listed above. We don't have a set policy in place to change usernames to non-Latin scripts at the moment. The debate is ongoing, not deprecated, and till them, I'd prefer to keep this in abeyance. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If abeyance means what I think it does, maybe you should not mark this with a big red X. If you think it properly should have a big red X on it, please clarify what the status of this request is. The user in question is en-2, and this native speaker is confused as to what you mean.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The "big red 'x'" just comes with the {{not done}} template, which we use because of the bot that does the automated archiving of the page. It represents no statement of any kind. Redux 23:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

End copied remarks

Nichalp wanted to keep this request in "abeyance", but it was archived and I don't see any pages for requests in abeyance. I asked him for clarification over a week ago and have not recieved an answer. Can someone tell me what the status is on this? The username policy has been stable without listing Non-latin names as inappropriate per the instructions at WP:CHU for some time now with no debate. How long must it be like this before it can be considered deprecated? What page should I watchlist to know when a decision has been made on this request?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just put it back on CHU (without the threaded discussion, including the not done tempalte) and point to the username policy; we'll take it from there. Essjay (Talk) 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I would like to see policy amended properly first. The discussions on Meta and on Foundation-l had sparked a discussion on the talk page of the Username policy page. It seemed to be going in a direction, but the discussion seems to have died off while people were still discussing a few options. Following that (or rather, still during the discussions, towards the later stages), there was a back and forth in the policy page, which is not ideal, and that ended with one user's unilateral alteration, presumably reflecting his own take on the issue, which happened to stay on [9]. That's not how we amend policy, especially when there was already a debate going on. Redux 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I must protest your characterization of that edit. There are several people on the talk page supporting the idea of "avoiding non-latin usernames" rather than a strong prohibtion [10] [11] [12]. Many other people on that page supported any softening of the policy. It is hardly an unilateral action reflecting his own take on the issue. If you still believe it was, however, inappropriate, I would expect you to warn the editor and rectify it. I understand many people choose to stay away from criticizing others and making policy edits, but I think such choices are out of line from a b'crat. I think any b'crat who was watching that edit, believed it to be inappropriate, and did nothing; should seriously reconsider their position. Obviously people such as myself, and of course the editor in question, believed it to appropriate and in line with the consensus of opinions expressed on the talk page. If we are deceived in our thinking, how can a b'crat sit by for weeks on end, not only allowing our self-deception to continue, but also allowing us to inadvertently deceive the countless people who are reading that policy as it stands? If a b'crat will not correct such an error in thinking both about how a particular policy should read and also about how policies should be amended in general, who can be to expected to speak-up? Perhaps all the b'crats who were following this issue have been on a long holiday wikibreak. I certainly hope none who believe the amendment inappropriate have been aware of it for very long.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, my edit was not unilateral, and that was a rather unreasonable thing for you to "presume," Redux. The talk page discussion showed not only that that there was no consensus for the previous setup, but that there was more opposition than support. Several users commented that it was too strong, and Dragons flight suggested relocating the text (which is all that I did, incidentally).

It's one thing to disagree with me, but I don't understand why, without even requesting an explanation, you would accuse me of circumventing debate.

Thank you, BirgitteSB, for bringing the above to my attention. —David Levy 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy, people. I understand that this is a sensitive subject for many, but that really doesn't help. Since you mentioned, Birgitte, I really only noticed the events on the Username page itself when I reviewed the discussions recently, because of your post here. I had been aware of the discussions, but as a Bureaucrat, that is to say someone who would be charged with carrying it out, I preferred to stay out of this, and let the community work it out.
Now, my understanding of what had happened was as I wrote above, my apologies if I misunderstood something. However, it still appears to me that the discussions went stale while there were still things up in the air, and in the end, what happened is that someone (David) implemented a specific viewpoint, which wasn't necessarily an agreed-upon direction to take — as I said, discussions died out while options were still being discussed, as it often happens on Wikipedia, unfortunately. And I'll repeat, that's not the way to amend policy: if the discussions had gone silent, you could have asked something like "so nobody opposes us doing it this and that way", so as to rekindle it and possibly go ahead with the change. And the context, with a previous change to the policy which was reverted to the status quo only to be yet again changed to reflect another understanding of what should be in there, didn't make it look any better.
Please do not mistake this for a "manifesto" for the return of the original wording. My job is to do as policy directs in this matter, not to judge single-handedly which direction should this be. In fact, this thread could even suffice to legitimize, if it be the case, the change. If all we will see here will be support for the change, we can just copy this into the talk page of the Username policy and that would be it. The bottom line is: when amending official policy, we need to be more particular, and engaging in a back and forth in reverting and re-reverting the policy page never, never helps. Redux 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)but as a Bureaucrat, that is to say someone who would be charged with carrying it out, I preferred to stay out of this, and let the community work it out.

I don't have a problem with a b'crat staying out of policy discussion. I have a problem with a b'crat seeing what they believe is an inappropriate policy edit and doing nothing about it for weeks. I hope you would also have a problem with such a situation (which is not what happened with you since you hadn't been following the page before).

as I said, discussions died out while options were still being discussed, as it often happens on Wikipedia, unfortunately

I see active discussion on the issue in the days after the edit in question. The fact that discussion died out after the edit was made, I interprept to be because most people were happy enough with the compromise to stop complaining.

And I'll repeat, that's not the way to amend policy: if the discussions had gone silent, you could have asked something like "so nobody opposes us doing it this and that way", so as to rekindle it and possibly go ahead with the change

Many things could have been done differently. Still I have trouble believing the edit made to the policy on Dec 25 was against consensus and yet with so many different people involved in that discussion no one has complained to David or changed it as of Jan 11. I cannot agree that it was an inappropriate edit because explicit permission was not obtained on the talk page.

And the context, with a previous change to the policy which was reverted to the status quo only to be yet again changed to reflect another understanding of what should be in there, didn't make it look any better.

I really don't understand how edit's made by other people can make David Levy's edit inappropriate. David at least participated in discussion at length before editing the policy. The other two previous editors either edited first and then shared their opinions on the talk page or never edited the talk page at all. Yet you think their actions make David Levy's compromise edit worse?

The bottom line is: when amending official policy, we need to be more particular, and engaging in a back and forth in reverting and re-reverting the policy page never, never helps.

I suggest you mention this to people who actually participated in reverting and re-reverting. I happen to agree with the sentiment but I will only take responsibilty for my own actions and those of others which I explictly support not every edit which I don't explictly object to.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

1. As noted on the talk page, the policy was edited over time in a manner for which no consensus existed, and this slipped under many users' radars. The "status quo" was far from sacrosanct, as the onus is on those who advocate such restrictions (not those who oppose them) to establish consensus. Otherwise, unless and until Jimbo or the Board hands down such a decision, this cannot be regarded as policy.

2. As BirgitteSB mentioned, my edit was a compromise (suggested by Dragons flight and backed by several others). The only thing that wasn't established during the discussion's course was whether consensus even existed to retain the wording at all. What was demonstrated was that editors on both sides of the issue were willing to accept a middle-of-the-road arrangement. Since when is a discussion-derived compromise considered inappropriate?

3. I don't understand why you're lumping me together with other users. I made a good-faith effort to engage in productive discussion and edited the page in a manner that I honestly believed reflected the opinions expressed. I didn't edit-war, and Centrx (who advocated retaining the restrictions) acknowledged this on the talk page.

4. If you disagreed with my interpretation of the situation or objected to my edit in any way, you could have contacted me, expressed your concerns, and inquired as to my reasoning. Instead, you "presumed" that I had acted unilaterally and declared this in a discussion of which I wasn't aware (until BirgitteSB kindly informed me via my talk page). —David Levy 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My observations had nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the exact changes you made to the page. That is besides the point. I'm sure you meant well, but the entire ending to the discussions, as I have mentioned repeatedly, was conducted in a flawed manner — which, just to be clear, I'm not saying was your fault.
And please, don't post replies in the middle of an ongoing thread. At this point, I'm not even sure if you read my latest remarks. Redux 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, my edit was suggested by another user and backed by several others. Yes, I "meant well" when I implemented a compromise that was discussed and approved on the talk page, thereby halting an edit war. That's how things are supposed to work.

The fact one of us (I believe you) misinterpreted the situation is not an excuse to "presume" that my edit was unilateral and declare this behind my back without any attempt to discuss it with me. Frankly, I'm surprised that you've apologized only for a possible misunderstanding on your part (and not for the lack of common courtesy that you demonstrated above).

2. I did not "post replies in the middle of an ongoing thread." I read your remarks and typed my reply in the correct location (below BirgitteSB's earlier reply with +1 indentation). I'm baffled as to what you're complaining about. —David Levy 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And I will now emphasize further the completely wrong context in which this all happened: this comment, on Birgitte's talk page. With all due respect to Gurch, who does good work for the project, that is absolutely not at all the way to do this: we don't make changes we expect to be reverted so that for the day and a half it stayed on the people concerned will "have done nothing wrong". And the edit was indeed reverted, only to be changed yet again 3 hours later. Do you see what I mean? Redux 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that edit reflects poorly on Gurch. But seriously I think you are giving far to much weight to the inappropriatenes of previous editors. The compromise was supported by many comments on the talk page. Tha lack on objections in so long a time further supports it. There are still people in both extremes who would rather see the policy read differently but they are not so dissatified with the compromise that they wish to continue the debate. It is hard for me to believe that David Levy would not have made the same edit had Gurch never edited the policy.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning David's edit, it's just a ground rule: if the page has been changed, reverted, and so on, don't re-revert right away (except if it is clear vandalism). It only helps create a context where your (whoever edited) edit may be questioned or even misunderstood. If we all did that, problems such as 3RR violations would be exclusive to vandals, and not something good editors get blocked for all the time. And this should really go doubled if the page we're talking about happens to be an official policy page.
It is, of course, rather unfortunate that even an issue about which people cared about seemingly a lot was allowed to go stale on the talk page before consensus on how the policy should be amended could be reached — or at least that is what it looked to me had happened upon reviewing the discussions: people were discussing options, and "suddenly" there was no follow up to the proposals —. All in all, context wasn't really painting the best picture for the final parts of this policy amendment discussion.
As I said, if we will see only support for the present outline of the page, we can copy and paste this thread into the Username talk page and it should suffice, which is absolutely fine with me, and I'm sure, would be with all the other Bcrats. Redux 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything, let alone "right away." I discussed the matter on the talk page and implemented a widely supported compromise. As BirgitteSB noted, the discussion subsequently died down because most people were satisfied with the outcome. —David Levy 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the way I read it, people were making suggestions, then there was no follow up. At the same time, the policy page was changed, reverted, and changed again, the last time by you. That is what happened. What you and Birgitte claimed is that context was different from what I had understood it to be. And also like I said before, my sole intent here was to make sure that policy be amended properly, not to advocate what exactly the amendment should be, so if you an Birgitte are saying that it was done right, and that I had misinterpreted the events on the policy page, all the better. However, all of this could have been easily avoided if you had not: 1) edited almost immediately after the page had been through a back and forth, seemingly adding to it; 2) used the edit summary more accurately, by writing something like "altering per discussions on talk page", instead of It's okay to encourage people to make things easier for others, but the implication that non-Latin usernames are "inappropriate" reflects neither by consensus nor the actual text in question. — which implicated a response to Nichalp's reversion to the original version, rather than the implementation of a concerted decision on the talk page — adding to this appearance was the fact that you did not edit over Gurch's 2-day-old, admittedly inaccurate edit, but rather only (figuratively) immediately after the page had been reverted to the original wording. So you see, a context was created that didn't help, and it was easily avoidable.
Finally, this discussion needs to be transferred to the talk page of the Username policy. Redux 11:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You implied above that I "re-revert[ed]" the page. That is false. I did not undo anyone's edit. I merely relocated some text from one section of the page to another.

2. Upon reading the talk page discussion, you surely noticed the comments by several users that the text in question belonged elsewhere on the page. Why, then, did you refer to my action as "unilateral," and why would you expect "follow-up" to the implementation of the most widely supported solution?

3. "Back and forth" edit wars frequently are resolved via prompt compromise. By stating that I shouldn't have edited the page so soon, you're basically arguing that the edit war should have continued.

4. In my edit summary, I explicitly cited "consensus" (by which I meant that which was established on the talk page). My statement that the implication didn't reflect "the actual text in question" was a reference to the talk page comments that it didn't mean what was contextually implied by its presence in that section.

5. Yes, context was different from what you understood it to be, but I find it incredible that you blame this misunderstanding on me (listing all of the mistakes that you believe I made). Had you simply inquired on my talk page, "all of this could have been easily avoided." Instead, you declared behind my back that this was a "unilateral alteration" on my part. (And I wouldn't have even learned of this and been able to respond if BirgitteSB hadn't informed me.)

6. Would you mind explaining what you meant above when you claimed that I replied to this discussion incorrectly? —David Levy 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've explained things repeatedly, and quite frankly, clearly enough. Your previous comments and Birgitte's served to explain context. So much so that I renamed the user concerned originally in this thread myself.
The only reason why this thread became some sort of review of yourself specifically is because you decided to make it so. The original intent was not to rebuke you directly, but rather to explain that it was my understanding that the policy had not been altered properly, despite the discussions that were going on that particular direction — so much so that your edit was only mentioned after I had commented on the back and forth that had happened previously, and since it was not the intention to focus on user review, I didn't even name names in my comment, even though I provided diffs to the edits in question. The main purpose was to legitimize any changes and prevent it from being challenged at some time in the future. That was it. So again: I said the discussions were going on that particular direction (consistent with your edit), but they looked like they had gone stale before a final version of the wanted changes could be agreed upon (my interpretation at the time). Then the page was changed, reverted, and changed again without any rekindling of the discussions, which, to me, at the moment, given what I understood had happened, would have been the correct course of action. Your edit summary indicated to me that you had reacted to Nichalp's revert of Gurch's edit in accordance with your own understanding of what the policy should be: again, read my previous comment on how a better use of the edit summary could have prevented that.
Had I inteded to bring you, David Levy, into review directly, you can rest assured I would have notified you beforehand, and I wouldn't be doing it here, on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. I'm sorry that you didn't like being criticized, but welcome to Wikipedia. I brought attention to an issue that I felt was important in light of Birgitte's inquiry regarding a rename that would only be possible by amending policy; and indeed notice, very importantly, that I was responding to another user's inquiry, not starting a thread myself. I've apologized for misunderstanding context, which is what happened, but I would have been remiss as a Bureaucrat if I saw a situation that looked the way it looked to me and just looked the other way and pretended that I never noticed it.
Now, after all the explaining that I've done, if you still can't see how a moderatelly different procedure in actually editing the page could have prevented all of this, then I must say, it's getting very difficult to make it clearer, especially after my previous comment. Put yourself in an uninvolved party's shoes, such as mine: Gurch edited the page, he admitted that the changes he made were not ideal, and that he even expected them to be reverted. His changes stayed on for almost 2 days. Then Nichalp reverted him, as he himself predicted; then less than 3 hours later, you changed the policy page again, with an edit summary that indicated a response and a reaction to Nichalp's edit (see my previous comment) — your edit was meant to change the exact passage in the policy (the non-Latin character part) that had been the object of the previous edits, so even if your edit was not to restore Gurch's exact words, the situation, as I was interpreting it, remained the same. In the discussions, I saw people still proposing possibilities to amend the policy, and then the discussion went stale, and to me at least, seeming that it had fallen short of arriving at a final version of what needed to be changed exactly. That is quite common on Wikipedia. And then the editing of the policy itself began.
Although perhaps my original words fell short of representing accurately my understanding of the situation: when I said that "a user (you) edited unilateraly, representing his own take on the issue", what I meant was that someone had edited before the discussions concluded, and in accordance with their own understanding of what the outcome should be. So 1) Yes, I know now that this is not exactly what happened, but it was my interpretation of the history and talk pages at the time — all of which could have been avoided with a few simple precautions, as I have already explained; 2) It doesn't mean that I thought that you were implementing an idea exclusively of your own. Even if my interpretation had been absolutely accurate, you'd still have implemented something that had been discussed previously on the talk page, but it wouldn't have been a valid implementation, since it would have happened before the discussions had concluded and in response to the previous back and forth in the article. (you did notice my use of the Conditional mood, right?)
Now, I hope this finally clears it up, since at this point this thread, aside from being gigantic, has become a poor allocation of time, both mine and yours. Redux 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I, too, have clearly explained my position.

Firstly, my implementation was valid. It addressed changes that were made to the policy without consensus (id est changes that shouldn't have been made in the first place). At that point, the only unresolved issue was whether the text in question would remain at all. (And of course, I didn't remove a single word.)

Secondly, I'm not blaming you for your honest misunderstanding. I'm criticizing you for not bothering to discuss your concerns with me. I'm sorry that you didn't like being criticized, but welcome to Wikipedia.

You referenced your responsibility as a bureaucrat to investigate the situation before proceeding. I agree, and that only makes it more difficult to understand why you didn't simply ask me about the edit before posting an assumption. This is a common courtesy that I would expect from any experienced user, bureaucrat or not. I realize that I was not the focus of this discussion, but you nonetheless publicly condemned my action.

You've continually stressed that this "could have been avoided with a few simple precautions," and I'm pointing out that it could have been avoided with one simple precaution: informing me that you disagreed with the appropriateness of my edit and/or inquiring as to what my reasoning was. I don't mind being criticized, but it's only constructive when I know about it. If you believe that someone has erred, shouldn't this be brought to his/her attention? Otherwise, how is he/she to know that a mistake was made (let alone learn from it)?

I certainly didn't expect this to balloon into such an enormous thread. I honestly expected you to simply apologize for neglecting to contact me regarding this matter. Instead, you've apologized for the original misunderstanding (which I don't blame you for) while simultaneously blaming me for causing it. In hindsight, I probably could have been clearer in my edit summary (and I'm sorry that I wasn't), but I would have gladly elucidated the situation for anyone who had simply asked me to. Until BirgitteSB informed me of your comments, I had no idea that my edit's validity had even been called into question.

And again, please explain what you meant when you claimed that I replied to this discussion incorrectly. As noted above, I want to know if I made a mistake (so that I may avoid repeating it in the future). —David Levy 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my previous posts. I will not entertain this any further. Thank you. Redux 16:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [posted with the edit summary "It's been explained"]

You explained what you meant by your "And please, don't post replies in the middle of an ongoing thread" admonishment? Wow, I must really be a screw-up, as I'm unable to locate such a response to any of my three clarification requests. —David Levy 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)