Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Just a note to let other bureaucrats know that Special:Userrights has been made available to us. Needless to say we can only use it to add +sysop or +bureaucrat, not to remove them. I just used it to promote User:Jon513‎ as Special:Makesysop wasn't working. WjBscribe 16:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, it doesn't work quite the way I thought it would. I tried it on myself and it showed me as having no user groups, and only being able to add bot. I kind of expected it to show my rights but not allow their removal. That's one way of accomplishing the goals of the situation though. It's nice. --Deskana (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are Makesysop and Makebot dead now, if so we can update the interface to refer to the new page. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it show anywhere the user's current usergroups? If not, a bug report may be in order. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, do you mean you can't access it or there is a bug? Voice-of-All 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with Special:Makesysop? Voice-of-All 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Makesysop and Special:Makebot were ugly hacks designed to give limited access. Special:Userrights now has the flexibility to control which groups can set which permissions, so there is no real reason not to use it. If we were ever to create a new usergroup (*cough*Rollback*cough*), with the old system we would need to write another special page to grant and revoke it. With Special:Userrights, this is no longer necessary. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

. . . yes, I know. I was referring to User:WJBscribe's comment that "it wasn't working". Voice-of-All 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not technically a 'crat issue but to avoid forking this, on Special:Specialpages User rights management should be moved to the Restricted special pages section. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The makesysop problems seem to be due to double escaping, which I fixed on SVN. Voice-of-All 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to me updating the instructions to suggest we use the shiny new Special:Userrights rather than Makesysop and Makebot? Warofdreams talk 02:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you actually make bots through userrights at the moment? Voice-of-All 03:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Meta-Wiki is the same, bots can be made through Userrights. Majorly (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it works perfectly (see [1]). Warofdreams talk 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Makesysop still works over at Meta-Wiki, along with Userrights. I guess I can use either :) Majorly (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, can you use userrights to set a +bot and +sysop at the same time, or +bot when +sysop exists? Maxim_(talk) 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, userrights can assign as many rights are as allowed by the group in question. In this case, bureaucrats have the ability to change rights from (none) to bot, bureaucrat, sysop in one swoop. Not that they ever would anyways. Mediawiki default however, if the developers put different restrictions, feel free to correct me. --Charitwo ^talk 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no technical method in place to allow such restrictions. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 17:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, I've updated the instructions. Warofdreams talk 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please restore my sysop bit. I requested it removed when I took a wikibreak and was unsure of if/when I would return to active editing and admin duties, under non-controversial circumstances (entirely self-prompted). If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Vassyana :) Indeed, I can attest that there was absolutely nothing controversial about the removal in Vassyana's case. Cheers, Daniel 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, completely uncontroversial - and fortunately for us Vassyanas wikibreak wasn't too successful and she's still been actively editing :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit set. Welcome back! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that whether one uses Special:Makebot or Special:Userrights for Bot flagging affects which log the action ends up in. For example:

1. Warofdreams flags and unflags a test account using Special:Userrights - the change is logged at Special:Log/rights
2. I flag a recently approved Bot using Special:Makebot - the change is logged at Special:Log/makebot

I guess the question is whether there is value in keeping the record of Bot flagging actions separate from other changes in user rights. If so, then bureaucrats should continue using Special:Makebot or the developers need to be asked to adjust the way in which granting/revoking Bot status using Special:Userrights is logged if that is possible. WjBscribe 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot is a user right just like any other, so will be in the user rights log. I'd personally prefer the bots to be in their own log - the rights log should be for people, in my view. Of course, it is not up to me, but I think they should be separate still. Majorly (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The log of bot flags says big and bold that it's deprecated and that the pages "do not exist", however they obviously are still there and functional. I'm assuming the devs will be removing them soon and that notice was premature. So I guess continuing to use Special:Makebot won't make a difference until it's, infact, gone. --Charitwo ^talk 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to be it to be big and bold under the assumption makebot and makesysop don't work, but I may be completely wrong here. Of course, I'm not a 'crat so I can't go to those pages myself to be completely certain, but I recall WJBsribe saying that makesysop doens't work.. Maxim_(talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did say that Makesysop didn't work - its unclear though whether that's a glitch or a permanent thing. Voice of All looked into it and thought it was a glitch that he'd probably now fixed, but it would need someone to be due to be promoted for me to check (I can still access the interface, but got an error message when I tried to use it last time). Special:Makebot seems to still be working as usual though. WjBscribe 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess wait for confirmation on when the pages will "cease to exist", or in this case on when Makebot will cease to function, it's just a matter of where to change the rights. I personally think they should be all flagged using Special:Userrights, but that's the 'crats discretion seeing as how Makebot, for now, is still fully functional. --Charitwo ^talk 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read / heard, Makebot and Makesysop will be officially deprecated as soon as the UI for Special:Userrights doesn't suck so much. Brion said he didn't want anyone to be forced to use Special:Userrights until the UI had been improved. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can the text at the top of the bot status log be changed to reflect that then? --Charitwo ^talk 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What with the addition of the $wgAddGroups and $wgRemoveGroups fields to MW 12.0, it appears the MakeBot extension is now defunct and all setting of rights will be done via Special:Userrights. This has been on the cards for a while now :) Anthøny 14:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read any of this conversation? As of my last comment, Special:Makebot was still fully functional, and Special:Makesysop wasn't working, both per WJBscribe. --Charitwo ^talk 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Makesysop worked fine at 11 o'clock this morning. WjBscribe 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Humm, I was going off this comment[2]. --Charitwo ^talk 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I just thought I would not that it has now started working again since then. It seems it was a glitch, not a deliberate move to stop Makesysop being used. WjBscribe 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't deliberate. One of the sysadmins changed the functionality of & in URLs, which inadvertently caused Makesysop to stop working. The Makesysop extension was fixed and synced to the site; the timing was merely coincidence. As I said, both extensions will stop being used when the UI of Special:Userrights is cleaned up. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good place for me to ask for Bot flaggings and deflaggings to be kept in a separate log? Or is that unlikely to be possible? WjBscribe 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

File a bug here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping there already was one :-) ... WjBscribe 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be an exception to do that, since as far as Special:Userrights is concerned it would be: if right = bot, log in bot log, else, use user rights. And hypothetically, since this is possible now, what if someone were to set rights for someone +bot +bureaucrat +sysop? Where would that go? (or for that matter, +bureaucrat +bot or +sysop + bot? Prodego ^talk 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Prodego, you know beans are bad for a well balanced Wikipedia diet right? --Charitwo ^talk 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a pretty good and safe idea to raise a potential issue with a proposal - at the moment, beans aren't an issue as using the new method gives a useful single log of the two together, while using the old set-up it isn't an issue, as it would require two very different actions. Warofdreams talk 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it really is a problem that bureaucrats can now make users that are only bureaucrats (not sysop), or make sysop/bot combo accounts. I don't really think that there was ever a real issue that they would do it, so I don't even know why that was coded in the 'Make' extensions. But it is a problem with the double log issue, since it might happen on other wikis. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not being able to make sysop/bot accounts proved an irritation with User:RedirectCleanupBot as a steward was needed to give it its Bot flag. As to the log issue, its always seemed useful to me to have a separate log of bot flaggings so they don't get lost in the busier user rights log but its not essential. As to the problem of how to log the giving of Bot status and another status, would it be a problem if that showed up in two logs - both the userrights and a separate Bot log? Alternatively could we make the user rights log more sortable, allowing users to look only at entries in the user rights log that involve a particular right? WjBscribe 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds an excellent proposal - and if more rights are later added, it will be all the more useful. Warofdreams talk 18:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sortability would be very nice, and I think it might be doable. The double logging would be messier, we should probably try to avoid that. Prodego ^talk 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sortability seems better from a user point of view. If it's manageable from a developer point of view that would be great. WjBscribe 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We've had a proposal going on for some time about granting rollback for non administrators. It's clear sysops would need to grant the permission (and userrights has been updated to allow this to happen) but would the bureaucrats' be willing to take on the responsibility of removing the permission? We would need to do this in response to misuse of the tool, I'm still looking at ways this could be done, but removal per a consensus on AN/I is probably the easiest way to do it, and obviously, this would be a discussion that you would have to evaluate the consensus for. This would stop the drama potential with admins granting and revoking userrights. Anyway, is this something you'd be happy to take on? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I'd still personally prefer to see Bureaucrats remove and grant. Maybe by setting up a page similar to Wikipedia:Changing username. If, after the initial "rush" of requests, this turns out to over-burden our current bureaucrats, then I'm sure that we could add a few to the fold : ) - jc37 21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't admins remove them? It's the same as blocking/unblocking, delete/undelete, protect/unprotect. All admins should be able to reverse other admins' actions. Majorly (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think it is a good idea for admins not to be able to undo their own or each others actions. Not to mention the different in the number of admins vs the number of 'crats. I would prefer that admins can do both, or that crats can do both. 1 != 2 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally with Majorly. If admins end up wheel warring on the granting or removal of these rights then shame on them, and off to RFC or ANI. After all, granting a rollback button is way down the scale from granting or removing editing rights (i.e. the block tool) and we all have the ability to do both right now. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All due respect, there was a reason this was posted on the Bureaucrat's noticeboard. : - ) The finer details can and will be discussed elsewhere; the point of this post was to gauge bureaucrats' thoughts. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

*makes mental note* Pedro and Majorly agreed on something :) Majorly (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:) does happen! Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At the expense of turning this into a Mockzilla thread, the ability for Bureaucrats to remove the rollback privilege could very easily be implemented through tweaking LocalSettings to read $wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'rollback', 'bot' );. Just a point :) Anthøny 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no that wouldn't work, since there isn't a rollback group at the moment. You would also need $wgGroupPermissions['rollback']['rollback'] = true as well. And that is nearly twice as much work! :P Let it be known it is not a technical issue though. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I could more or less speak for all (or at least enough) of us and say that we would be willing to work on removing the right if necessary and the community wants us to. If the workload was high, I'm sure we would have no trouble finding qualified candidates to become new bureaucrats. On the side note, I'm sympathetic to the position that if admins are given the ability to give out the right, they should be able to remove it too since once you can give it, removing it is less than blocking. But giving the right out is something more, so I'm not fully decided on who should give it out. But that's another discussion. - Taxman ^Talk 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can we be clear that there would need to be consensus that it would be for crats to remove? Is that currently under discussion anywhere? Hiding T 22:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's been superceeded at present by admins removing rollback - if needs be, we can look at the bureaucrats revoking it depending on what comes out of the community discussion - but I think it looks more like admins revoking it or nothing. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering how you guys felt about mentioning Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins in the notes you leave on user talk pages after a successful RfA. I think it's a good idea and that we should try and let every admin know about it and try and get as many admins as possible to have access. John Reaves 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose promoting IRC in any way, since it is just a huge mess. Prodego ^talk 04:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC is not wikipedia. WP:POST should suffice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A brief mention in passing may not be such a huge problem; a note such as "On an aside, if you are interested, I can also give you access to #admins on IRC" -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. A good idea, in fact, to reduce the idea of a "cabal" channel. Majorly (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done this for quite a while. As far as I'm concerned, all admins are welcome in the channel and any admin who asks for access will get it from me. IRC isn't a huge mess because it's IRC, it's a huge mess because people are making it a huge mess, and to be honest I think the IRC Arbitration case proves that; it's actually a productive channel and when I was a new admin I got a lot of help from more experienced admins via that channel. I personally encourage bureaucrats to mention the admins channel to people. --Deskana (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, can I ask what you mean by "WP:POST should suffice"? Other than reporting on controversies regarding the admins channel, I/we've made no effort to promote the admins channel, or any administrative duties or tasks. Ral315 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant B's should advise new admins to read the Signpost to keep up with Wikipedia-related matters, since the Post is officially part of Wikipedia while IRC is not. I don't think he was establishing a relation between the two, or that the Signpost is the admin newsletter. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC is not a big mess, I am there all the time. Most of the claims of abuse from that channel come from people who don't even go there. It is all very exaggerated, it is just a place for admins to get advice from each other. Seriously the most recent issue with IRC is based on an incident months ago. 1 != 2 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Event in question take place December 22, 2007.[3] Silly 'Zilla thought that was less than "months ago", regret Zilla can only count to 3! Little User:Until(1 == 2) can count to months? Clever! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC).

It's a shame people don't get excited on-wiki over all of the constructive things that happen there. John Reaves 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That'll be the day... Majorly (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I won't - I don't see any of the IRC channels as a positive influence on the wiki.. I've never been in #admins and don't intend to. Secretlondon (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because no one makes a point of pointing it out hen there is positive collaboration or quick admin action facilitated by IRC.John Reaves 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you also know the length of the Emperor of China's nose? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. John Reaves 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note the indents—the comment replies to Secretlondon, not to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I've no idea what it means either.. Secretlondon (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It struck me as...unfortunate...that you would condemn the channel as having no positive influence without actually having any experience of what (if anything) actually happens there. Your comment says, "I've never looked at the Emperor's nose, and I don't intend to—but I'm pretty sure it's too long."

The only time we hear about #admin on-wiki is when something bad happens that is (directly or ever-so-tangentially) related to the channel. One explanation – which you seem to have chosen – is that the channel has no positive, useful influence, and serves only to harm Wikipedia. I have a sneaking suspicion that other explanations are possible. It's certainly not outside the realm of the plausible to suggest that some admins find it a useful, rapid sounding board or forum for quick discussion, and that when #admins actually is working properly we never hear a word about it on-wiki. This is true of most of Wikipedia's processes and policies; nobody talks about them unless there's been some sort of breakdown. (When was the last time you saw a post on WP:AN/I saying "I just wanted to let everyone know that I think Bob is doing an excellent job as admin" or "Joe gave me a twenty-four hour block yesterday, and I wanted to thank him. I was entirely out of line and had it coming; I hope he keeps up the good work. If he's not around and I start edit warring again, someone should block me for a week next time; have a good day everyone"?)

The fact that we generally hear about #admins infrequently on-wiki suggests to me one of three things.

1. There's nearly nobody there, so it can't be doing much harm or much good;
2. There are lots of people there who do mostly useless things, but occasionally they use it to plot something really disastrous; or
3. The participants there generally use it to quietly accomplish productive things, and we hear about it on occasion because – just like admins who aren't on IRC – they screw up now and then.

I can't confidently claim that any one of those is correct (like Secretlondon I've never been in #admins) but I'm not prepared to jump to a conclusion without inspecting evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have presumed that I've never been on any of the wikipedia irc channels... This project is also supposed to be pretty non hierarchical. Secretlondon (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post advertisements in RFA messages, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Promotion of some chat room is an advertisement. Friday (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A link to "some chat room" hosted by a non-profit organization used for coordinating a non-profit encyclopedia being posted an said non-profit encyclopedia is a problem how? John Reaves 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It fragments discussion when people use a chat room for things that could be discussed on the wiki. That discussion is then lost to people who may want to read it later. But, this isn't the right place for discussing the merits of IRC. We can't, on Wikipedia, make people choose to use or not use a chat room. We can, however, choose whether or not to advertise these chat rooms here. Friday (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a bit of a slippery slope to try to put everything right into the new admin's welcome message. Put a reference on one of the 'recommended reading' pages, and those who are interested will find it. I'm well into my third year as an admin and I have yet to spend any time in #admins; I don't think it's particularly hurt my ability to work here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ultimatley, it's up to the bureaucrat's own discretion. John Reaves 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Secretlondon does not believe they're a positive influence and so does not wish to promote them; I disagree with her reasoning but I'm totally fine with it, of course. But due to my own positive experiences with receiving good advice from other admins when I was new (and people seeking me out on IRC to get my advice), I won't be stopping advertising the channel. --Deskana (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a very good solution. If there's wide disagreement even among crats on the usefulness of the channel, why not leave it out? Doing what you're doing effectively means the channel becomes closer to a "club for people Deskana has personally invited." Surely we don't think something like that is helpful to the project? We want to move away from cabalism (or even the appearance of such), not toward it. Friday (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent solution, Deskana. In general, I have found the channel very helpful in my time as an admin. The "club", as Friday so badly puts it is open to every admin, not just ones that happen to be invited. By "advertising" it, we are reducing the appearance of a "cabal", not increasing. Friday, we already know you hate IRC with a strong passion - but do you have anything useful to say other than "I don't like it"? You've never even been in there, so you are not the best person to talk about this. Majorly (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't hate it. I consider it merely irrelevant (and, of course, separate from Wikipedia). Thus, we should not advertise it here. Friday (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I just got that idea from all your opinions of it I've seen. Anyhow, it isn't as bad as all the anti-IRC people make it out to be, so I don't consider it a problem. Majorly (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never been on IRC. Is it useful? (All I've seen on-wiki is the conflict it causes and the accusations of cabalism, but I realise that this probably isn't the whole story, and that it probably is useful for some purposes.) Walton^One 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a chat room, with the good and bad things that come with that. It's a less formal environment. Depending who you talk to, it's the online equivalent of either the neighborhood pub, or possibly a high school locker room. Personally, I think Wikipedia works well because it's not like a chat room. Here, we expect people to behave like adults. Here, it's not considered a cardinal sin to actually keep track of who said what- the software does this for us. Again, depending who you talk to, the expectations of civilized behavior may or may not be different in a chat room. Friday (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Walton, it's really damned useful. All the editors who are anti-IRC have clearly not been on the channels, at least on a regular basis, and their accusations are almost always false. There is no cabal or exclusive club, despite what you may have read. Yes, bad stuff happens on IRC. Then again, bad stuff happens on wiki too, and it's extremely rare. Most of the discussion is off topic banter, and I personally enjoy talking to other Wikipedians/Wikimedians. And despite what Friday says, it's mostly like the local pub, just friendly chitchat. I hope you decide to come on, Walton. I'll help get you set up if you like. Majorly (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Walton. It is tremendously useful. Aside from any #admin discussions to get help learning how to perform actions or consulting with others, there are a bunch iof other great channels specifically sety up to help users with AWB, and Bot work. Plus there is an entire helpdesk channel devoted to help users get real-time response, great for newbies and good regardless of level of experience. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. IRC quite frankly is helpful at times; it's been more than once that I've been sitting there and seen admins ask other admins for help with a backlog. Half the time, though, it's ridiculously silly topics of discussion. Inviting more people in eliminates the idea of it being a cabal of any sort. While I understand the concerns about on-wiki stuff needing to happen on-wiki, the drama surrounding IRC has very, very little to do with IRC itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the best way to improve the channel is by increasing the amount of users. But back to the main point of this discussion, I'm still unsure on whether B's should include this in RFAs. Some might disagree with the channel's purpose or use, and remember that IRC is still just an unofficial tool used by Wikipedians for collaboration, aside from the current discussion on whether it is good and useful or just plain "evil".

I suggest that users actively participating in or administrating the channel extend invitations to recent admins. If those users just happen to be bureaucrats, that's fine with me. But why ask every bureaucrat to extend an invitation to a channel which one or more of them might not even care for, or worse, disagree with. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Those admins and bureaucrats who are also involved with the IRC channel can let new admins know about it, but since IRC has no official status on Wikipedia, we can't require all bureaucrats to promote it. Most new admins receive a long string of congratulatory notes from their wikifriends, so it shouldn't be problematic to include a notification about the IRC channel. Walton^One 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to describe what happens now. Deskana is both a bureaucrat and a chan op for #wikipedia-en-admins so offers to sort access at the same time he informs users they have succeeded at RfA. However, there has never been a standard message left by bureaucrats to new admins and messages vary in length and tone based on the interests and personality of each bureaucrat. If users who are chan ops wish to leave messages offering access to the channel, this seems acceptable but its probably simplest if messages are left by people who are actually able to grant the access. Looking at the channel's access list, only 3 bureaucrats can furnish such access (Deskana, UninvitedCompany or Angela) and the last two are not very active either as crats or as ops. From the comments above, it seems that bureaucrats are as divided on the merits of IRC as the rest of the community, some would presumably see -en-admins access as of use to an new admin and others not. It would seem counterproductive to either force crats to mention the channel if they do not think it useful or to prohibit its mention where the crat's experiences lead to the opposite conclusion (especially where they have the ability to furnish access were it requested). WjBscribe 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this may be the only realistic compromise. I don't want to see people sending the message of "As a crat, I recommend this chat room." I'd rather see it be very clear that the message is, "As a chat room user, I recommend this chat room." I'd still prefer to see no mention at all of these chat rooms on the wiki, but I suspect that's just wishful thinking. They're too entrenched. Friday (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its asking a bit much to have some unnatural words like "as a chat room user" in a message. Deskana is a bureaucrat, he doesn't stop being a bureaucrat when he recommends #wikipedia-en-admins as a good resource for admins and offers to give access. It would be wrong were he to say "the community thinks admins should join the channel" or "Wikipedia's bureaucrats are agreed that admins should join the channel" but it is apparently true that "Deskana (who is a bureaucrat) believes #wikipedia-en-admins to be an IRC channel new admins would benefit from joining". I don't think he needs to compartmentalise himself into two people because some people are uneasy about IRC (and this channel in particular). WjBscribe 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently, User:Keilana agreed to a reconfirmation of her status as an admin per her decision to include herself on the list at Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. User:Dihydrogen Monoxide initiated an RfA for this purpose here, which is currently found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keilana.

Personally, I am not on the admin recall list, but I have no issue with those who have included themselves upon it and are willing to go through the process. There have been recall votes in the past (which are archived here), and those who were interested in taking part of it did so without drawing others into the debate. Even the concept's supporters would acknowledge that there are some problems with it, but so long as they don't tend to spill out into the rest of the wiki, it's acceptable in my book.

However, I do have a problem with using RfA for recall votes. For starters, it's not the right venue, since it's not an RfA. Furthermore, some recall votes have been magnets for the kind of wiki-drama that tends to waste others time - when recalls are restricted to user and project spaces, it can be more self-contained, but in under two days' time the vote posted at WP:RFA has become a massive time sink over a trivial issue. It also gives the impression that admin recalls are a part of WP policy, which they are not. At best this belongs at WP:RFC or mediation, but really, the issue is largely irrelevant and makes no discernible impact to this encyclopedia that I can see.

My first inclination was to begin an MfD for the RfA, which will probably cause even more drama, drawing editors away from encyclopedia-building even further. But before I head down that path, I wanted to seek the input of a few 'crats here to hear their opinions on all of this. So... what's the deal? Is WP:RFA really the appropriate venue for this circus? Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some admins do choose it as a reconfirmation venue, like User:Walton One. It's been accepted in the past; if you want to MFD the RFA, I have no problem with it, however, as there are valid concerns about my admin bit, I'd suggest you initiate recall or something to alleviate the concerns. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the entire recall/reconfirmation process is broke. While I agree that admins need to be held accountable to the community, they also need to be able to make tough decisions. Admins will make some people unhappy, this will occur. Recall need tossing. This RFA is not needed, there is dispute resolution for these things. To clarify, dispute resolution could have been used instead of subjecting Keilana to a reconfirmation. M-ercury at 01:54, January 8, 2008

Ah, but I specifically am open to recall, and made special provisions given the circumstances. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And I am specifically open to trout slapping, but my talk page should probably not be filled with trout. Keilana, with continuing respect, you should have used the dispute resolution venue. I admire your courage and tenacity to honor. However, I wholeheartedly agree this was not needed and could have been resolved elsewhere. M-ercury at 02:01, January 8, 2008

He did ask for RfA though, just for clarification. Again, if people want me to withdraw and immediately start proper recall, I'm open to that too. Just ask me. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I want you to withdraw this mistakenly placed RFA, and you to get on with the project as a sysop. M-ercury at 02:06, January 8, 2008

I can't. Maybe when there were 85 supports and no opposition, but some extremely valid concerns have been raised (namely by User:W.marsh), and withdrawing would obviously result in a proper recall and most likely desysopping and (more) drama. My above offer still stands. The opinion of a 'crat would be much appreciated. With all due respect, Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the Crat's noticeboard and I've opined enough here for the night. I wish you best of luck. :) Best regards, M-ercury at 02:12, January 8, 2008

Thank you. Same to you. :) Best, Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The best course of action - the one that minimizes the DRAMA - is, I think, to to let the RFA run to conclusion. At that point, I suspect (given the current level of support) it will end above the 80% threshhold and it can be closed without further discussion. In the future, though, please do not repeat this. RFA is not meant for these kinds of antics. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks for the input. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a tool that allows the contributions made under a particular name across all Wikimedia projects to be checked. I have added a link to it in the template used at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. Its another piece of information for bureaucrats to factor in when deciding whether or not to perform renames. Although single login no longer seems as close around the corner as it did a few months ago, performing renames that make unified login harder to sort out in future seems rather counterproductive. I'm not advocating that we deny requests just because a few edits have been made under a given name to a couple of projects, but if there is clearly a significant holder of the name on another project (say with several thousand contributions) then it may be better not to perform the rename. WjBscribe 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm it is coming up with edits that appear to have been transwikied. Edits I quite possibly made on enwp but I have never edited wikibooks for instance, or elwp. Viridae^Talk 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They were exported with the histories. My contributions page on Wikibooks, for example, shows edits that I actually made on Wikibooks and edits that I made on enwp but were exported to Wikibooks. Graham87 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:Deskana, for instance, contains some of my transwikied edits then someone registered the account and vandalised (I don't speak German). Still a useful tool, either way. --Deskana (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a great tool. I've wanted to see something like it for a long time. Interestingly, there seem to be at least three different people across the Wikimedia projects who use the name "Shalom." Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Rule of thumb: don't consider contributions in other project unless the user has specifically confirmed those identities, either in the RFA, in their userpage, or in any other discussion or forum. My log shows contributions from Wiktionary, but it's not one of my accounts. I would, however, suggest that RFA's include an optional template for users to list their other accounts, with a link to the tool Will described above. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An example of where this might cause a problem for a rename. An en.wiki user wants to usurp the username Anakin (talk · contribs). Its available on this project but its clear that there is a contributor to French language projects who uses this name [4]. They have 3387 edits to the French Wikipedia, and 274 edits to Commons. I'm reluctant to allow the usurpation of a name that is already used elsewhere. Thoughts from others welcome. WjBscribe 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I'm minded to perform the request, advising the user that they may lose out to the other holder of the name were SUL to be implemented at some point in the future. WjBscribe 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That would seem the best alternative for now. There's no official word (that I am aware of), of the recent progress of meta:Help:Unified login. Users might get frustrated by this if we keep telling them we can't give them certain usernames because of something planned for the future, when no official timetable has been set. Once it is, we can modify our existing process of usurpation to reflect that. Just my opinion. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. While I certainly think we should be mindful of what's coming down the pike, I don't think it would be wise to bank on such a long-rumored feature hitting any time soon. Alerting the user to a possible loss of their desired username is a good middle-ground here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The demo certainly exists (see my response to that message), but a version that actually does something seems considerably further off. --ais523 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

April 1 is april fools day, hence it is likely a joke. Viridae^Talk 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just responded to someone's post recently noting that:

• "...the granting of userrights (and associated tasks) is just about all there is to being a bureaucrat."

Is this essentially true, or is there more to being a bureaucrat? - jc37 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

They occasionally get to ride in the AC helicopter, when seats are available. Jehochman ^Talk 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? The arbcom has nothing to to with bureaucrats, though they both have to do with trusted users. — Dan | talk 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. (See black helicopter, conspiracy theory, and WP:TINC.) RfA can be a contentious process, and if abused, could expose the project to security threats. Bureaucrats provide extremely important services by making sure that user rights provisioning remains transparent and free of manipulation, and that malicious bots aren't flagged to run. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats manage Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (and bureaucratship) and Wikipedia:Changing username, and assign the bot flag at the request of users involved with bot approvals. All of this is also neatly documented at the unsurprising Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. — Dan | talk 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is another way of saying that they are involved with userrights and things associated with them. they close RfA because they're the ones who can makesysop (userright). They change usernames because there may be a userright issue (for admins, for example). Bot flags are, again, userrights. So is there anything I'm missing? - jc37 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all about who gets the flag. NoSeptember 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The changing of usernames doesn't actually have anything to do with user rights. All flags are moved automatically by Special:Renameuser. — Dan | talk 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats judge consensus on RFA and only flag bots after WP:BAG approval. Except for possible WP:OFFICE reasons, they can't promote a user with no prior discussion. If we require a discussion and consensus on RFR, it becomes RFA-lite, which is a Bad Thing. Mr.Z-man 07:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A bureaucrat is a magical creature, like a pixie or a unicorn, that watches over Wikipedia day and night, and all over the world. Have you ever wondered why bureaucrats take turns being active at different bureaucrat clubs, like RfA and Username Change? The Kindly Grand Controller is always in touch with each and every bureaucrat to let them what important functions need to be done. But what about the bureaucrats who we don't see from time to time? They have some of the most important jobs of all! They gather at the South Pole to build shiny new adminships for all the good little wikiboys and wikigirls. They also keep the naughty and nice lists, so remember that the next time you think of biting a newbie or assuming bad faith. What do bureaucrats do with their free time? I'm so glad you asked. The ones assigned to the South Pole play ice hockey with the penguins and also keep an eye on the Ozone Hole for the NOAA. The other bureaucrats are roving ambassadors for Wikipedia, visiting other magical creatures, such as Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Are there any bad bureaucrats? Of course not! Although a few have been relieved of their burdensome duties for R&R and reeducation at the Wikipedia Rest Homne. -- Cecropia (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Then...

Wouldn't it make sense that bureaucrats give access to rollback, which is a user-right? or have I been "all-wet" and am missing something? The arguments that admins can be trusted with this could be used for any of the tasks which bureaucrats perform. But since admins aren't trusted for A, why should they be for B? Since both A and B are the granted (and/or removal) of userrights. (And especially removal. Bureacrats currently can only remove the bot flag, why did we jump from steward to admin for this?) - jc37 06:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is a trivial function that most users can simulate with client side Javascript. It is not at all the same sort of security risk as the other things you have compared it to. Jehochman ^Talk 06:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If X, then Y; else Z

If Rollback is a "grantable" userright, then it should be granted by bureaucrats; else it's not a "grantable" user-right and is misdefined as one. (more on this last point below.)

If it's not a user-right, then it's implementation (automatically given to all registered users) should be "in balance" with it's "potential for harm". At the moment, it's not, else we wouldn't have had so many opposers. (A million supporters and 100 opposers still indicates that there is likely a problem that needs to be addressed.)

If it's "no different than editing", then adding the extra click of an edit window (complete with edit summary), similar to UNDO, should not cause issues (it would still be no different than editing), and yet it still would give a greater convenience over regular editing, and would be quite the boon for automated usage, such as various tools and bots.

This also proactively deals with the "one-click" accidents, that editors may or may not attempt to fix.

I'm just attempting to look at this logically. I just see a myriad of potential problems (and inconsistancies) with the current implementation. Is making one of the above choices (bureaucrats granting/removal of it as a user-right; or for everyone, but add the extra page click) such a horrible, bad thing? - jc37 09:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because in this case A is adminship and B is rollback. Surely you can see there is a difference? – Gurch 08:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship is merely a collection of user-rights (and the responsibility of associated tasks), surely you can see that? - jc37 09:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I feel assigning rollback-granting to only the 'crats would be a massive increase in their workload (which I wouldn't consider to be a particularly good thing). The whole rollback-granting feature is in its infancy; if it turns out there are issues, we may very well restrict its assignment in the future. Strictly speaking, though, I understand why you'd consider it a 'crat-only matter, but despite the designation of "bureaucrat", we're not a bureaucracy. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrugs, it deals directly with those who claim that "we don't need no more 'crats" : )

Or in other words, there's no reason that we can't find some trustworthy members of the community to nominate for those tools.

And for the rest, though we may not be bureaucratic, we should be at least consistant. - jc37 09:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Crats do not in fact grant all userrights, even if we exclude rollback. Checkuser and oversight are both granted only by stewards. So saying that crats should grant rollback because they grant everything else is not a good argument. Prodego ^talk 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, and something I have mentioned in another discussion on the same subject: the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization which controls Wikipedia, operates according to a system in which Bureaucrats are the user class responsible for the granting of any user rights which the Foundation has deemed that can be granted locally. Stewards retain exclusivity over the CheckUser and Oversight tools because the Foundation believes that they are too sensitive to be granted locally, and thus can only be enabled by request to the Foundation (Stewards work for the Foundation, not any local project specifically). If the Foundation decides that a restricted tool, any restricted tool, can be granted locally, this becomes the responsibility of local Bureaucrats.
Clearly, if rollback could be granted separately, it would not be deemed "too sensitive" to be granted locally, which means that the local Bureaucrats would be charged with granting it — and possibly revoking as well, similarly with the bot flag, although the Foundation could decide that the revoking of access to a restricted tool remains a Steward task exclusively (the bot flag is a sui generis situation).
Regardless of which scenario would be adopted, however, I do not see that the Foundation would have administrators handle the granting (and perhaps the revoking) or user rights. It is not a question of how "trivial" a tool might be — if that were an issue, admins could very well handle bot flags. Remember: the Foundation created the Bureaucrat user class especially to handle user right management (although it was later expanded to include renames).
And since this experience would be initiated here, in the English-language Wikipedia, the fact that the administrator user class on this project has more than a thousand members could give people further pause.
I should clarify that all of this that I've just said is not my opinion. This is an explanation of how the Foundation operates. I'm not saying that this is unchangeable; I'm not saying that the Foundation would never authorize admins to handle some level of user right management. I am saying, however, that right now the Foundation does not authorize the administrator user class to handle user right management, regardless of the number of tools involved or how simple those tools might be. Redux (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are tasked to grant rights deemed necessary and/or useful for them to grant. There are rights that were not granted by bureaucrats prior to the advent of rollback. The right to create a page, the right to move a page - these are granted by the user's action when they change in status from IP address to user account to "autoconfirmed" user account, and as you mentioned oversight, checkuser, and I would add steward, founder, import etc. all not granted by bureaucrats. Its a mistake to associate "bureaucrat" = "all user rights management" too closely, as the decision upon implementation that rollback is to be granted by admins shows. Steward vs. bureaucrat vs. admin vs. user granting of rights is defined for each right on a case by case basis as each right is implemented. NoSeptember 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation authorized the granting of rollback by admins, still as a test period, to be reviewed in about 3 months time (as the Board's Chair mentioned), as an experiment for something that may (or may not) work for large projects — and of course, en.wiki is the largest of them all. All predicated on the premise that rollback is a truly non-critical tool.
As I have mentioned before, the key to the role reserved to Bureaucrats lies in 2 aspects: 1) Granting (but not revoking) access to restricted tools. The term 'restricted' is the key: tools that can be accessed by logging in or by waiting out a period of time are not "restricted" in the assertion we use. "Restricted" are the tools that need to be enabled specifically for an account by someone else with access to user rights management — the process of granting and revoking access to restricted tools, done by certain users (Bureeaucrats locally and Stewards Foundation-wide) is referred to as "user rights management" —; 2) Bureaucrats handle the user rights that the Foundation deem that can be handled locally. Therefore, Bureaucrats do handle "all user rights management" that are done locally, as decided by the Foundation.
Of course, none of that is written in stone. Now, the Foundation has opened a relative exception, as a trial, to have a different user class be able to assign access to a non-critical restricted tool. It could work as a solution for projects with high traffic and lots of vandalism to be reverted. Personally, I hope that it works out. But this exception, I believe, doesn't negate the definition of Bureaucrat attribution that I've mentioned. Redux (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuesday night, someone, somehow took over my account and used it for some nasty vandalism (which you can read about here). In the process of quashing this vandalism, User:Raul654 speedily de-sysoped my account because the abuse had involved unprotecting and deleting pages.

Although I don’t think I had done anything insecure with my password, I have since extra precautions (stronger password, stored behind encryption on a secure computer) to make sure this doesn’t happen again. I have a long and uncontroversial track record on Wikipedia and I think a speedy re-sysop should be uncontroversial. Can you please take care of this for me? ike9898 (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul has been on top of your situation. He is a checkuser and seems to have confirmed that you are again in control of your account. He is also a bureaucrat, capable of resysopping you, and yet he did not respond to your request for resysop on his talk page despite being online after you made it. Perhaps this was just an oversight on his part. In any case, a day or two without the tools is no big deal if it helps us ensure that everything is in order here. NoSeptember 15:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark resysopped Ik39898 himself a bit after your message. - Taxman ^Talk 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put the closing banners up on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 3 but then remembered people get mad because all the lists aren't updated and other things. Would someone mind taking care of it? -- R ^ParlateContribs_@ 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone with a spare moment re-sysop me? I gave up the flag when I left just over a year ago and I'd quite like to have the tools again now I'm back. Many thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you back, we lost three sysops in the last 20 days, and we need some more people.-Phoenix-wiki 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done by Dan a bit ago. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, serves me right for going on a break. Who did we lose? Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget for one. :( - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wondering whether this might be extended as it seems to have hit a late rocky patch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Now moot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for withdrawing it, but given group psychology and my experience with dozens of RFAs, once it starts going down hill then it keeps going down hill. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I tried to create the Salka account at WP:ACC. Due to problems with the e-mail address, the account was created, but but the e-mail never got through - causing a permanently locked account. Please rename that account to a name which will probably never be wanted, so that the account can be created properly for this user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - account was renamed out of the way to User:Salka (creation error). WjBscribe 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate asked for the nomination to be withdrawn a few hours ago. Could a bureaucrat take care of it? Wizardman 16:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle took care of it, though for the record, if a candidate withdraws, I believe anyone can close the nomination (including the candidate), not just the bureaucrats. Acalamari 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The candidate has discussed an allegation of sock puppetry that User:Edward Morgan Blake is actually User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson.[5] Ordinarily I would not raise an issue about an alternative account, except that in this context, Oppose #1 by Edward Morgan Blake is deceptive.[6] Either he needs to tell the truth, or keep quiet. He can't present himself as an independent party when he's not.

My own, brief investigation shows that the contributions of Blake and Gustafson editors dovetail almost perfectly, and they have interesting intersections on October 7, 2007 and October 24, 2007. Either it's one person, or they are two people taking turns on the same computer. I think there's enough here to request a checkuser, but I would rather that a bureaucrat handle this. Jehochman ^Talk 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting edit: [7]. Jehochman ^Talk 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the significance of that edit, Jehochman? Sorry if it's right in front of my face and I'm not seeing it. GlassCobra 07:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see many new users saying, "where's my welcome message?" in the edit summary. This reinforces the evidence that it's an established user with an alternate account. I welcome thorough checking of this situation for the purpose of dispelling any doubts surrounding the RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 07:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an insulting accusation, and I suggest you withdraw it. You're claiming that a long-time admin is pretending to be two different people--having conversations with himself, consistently referring to himself in the third person. JGO has performed an enormous amount of productive, tedious work for the community in the past; your claims are a slap in the face. Besides, since when has Gustafson cared what people think about him enough to pull an idiotic stunt of the sort you're suggesting?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) struck, and apologized on Jehochman's talk page[8]--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody else suggested, and I checked the contributions. The result was surprising, to say the least. My question is whether the allegation, if proven true, constitutes wrongdoing, or an acceptable use of an alternate account. It seems like no, but I'd like other opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I, also, find similarities between the accounts to be suspicious. I see long periods of inactivity on User:Edward Morgan Blake, interrupted by single edits to the exact same page that User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson was editing here and here. I then see a cessation of User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson's activity on Dec 5th at the same time that User:Edward Morgan Blake picks up again. I have no opinion on whether the RfA contribution was deceptive but I think the allegation that these accounts are somehow related is not unfounded. Ronnotel (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It can't be Jeffrey O. Gustafson, the user page is blue!! :D Majorly (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't take your meaning - can you speak slower and use short words? :) Ronnotel (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believed that there was enough substance to this complaint to file a formal report: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Non-transparent behavior on RFA is worrying. Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. What do we do about this? Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I removed his oppose !vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rodhullandemu as disruptive. Ronnotel (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this was necessary. He didn't participate with his other account also, right? Friday (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the checkuser result is accurate, how was his comment not disruptive? He has used his sock to create an illusion of independence. If he wants to comment on the RfA, he needs to do it as User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Ronnotel (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I believe the closing 'crat would have taken note of this thread in relevance to the comment, and discounted it, I actually agree that in this case it should have been removed. We have past precedent of removing comments at RfA of users who have subsequently been blocked (for this precise issue) whilst the RfA was still live. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Ned Scott who as far as I can tell is not an admin or a bureaucrat has just unstricken the oppose vote by the suspected sockpuppet of User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and although that vote makes no difference at present, there is on any view a prima facie case of sockpuppetry which is now before the ArbCom. I ask whether this is proper, as the striking out seems to have achieved consensus both here and on the RfA talk page, and in which I was not involved. Your input is welcome here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, especially since User:Edward Morgan Blake is essentially still blocked (he has been unblocked solely for the purpose of participating in the RfAR, and, as Pedro cites above, there is precedence for striking comments from blocked users. Anyone else? Ronnotel (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• For information, vote has been re-stricken (is that a word? - ugh!) by User:LaraLove--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• And has been re-unstricken by Ned Scott who (OMG) is not an admin! The accusation has not been proven, far from it, actually. Congratulations, we discovered two users using the same IP. How many times do we have to show that is a reasonable and probable situation? If you want to assert such a harsh accusation, get some evidence to support it. Citing that some other admin has foolishly blocked his person is not sufficient. -- Ned Scott 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

foolishly? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stating that an administrator action (as opposed to the administrator himself or herself) is "foolish" may not be the most tactful way of putting things, but it doesn't really constitute a personal attack. The closing bureaucrat will decide how to evaluate the !vote/comment in question, so edit-warring over whether it is stricken or not is not really productive. The underlying circumstances are the subject of a pending request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Determination of matter

Wearing my bureaucrat hat, I am of the opinion that this comment should remain unstruck. My full reasoning can be read here and is as follows:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeffrey O. Gustafson shows that this user shares a strong IP connection with the adminsitrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Edward Morgan Blake denies being a sockpuppet of Mr Gustafson. Jeffrey O. Gustafson is free to oppose this RfA - either he has done so or someone else (also entitled to oppose) has done so. There is no suggestion of trying to distort consensus by expressing more than one opinion and the events upon which the opposition is based took place and may be reviewed by other commentators. I therefore think this oppose comment should stand to be taken into account by other commentators and by the bureaucrat who ultimately closes this RfA.

I acknowledge that those involved have all conduct themselves in good faith and that there was a valid argument for indenting the opposition, I do not however think that the best course of action to pursue in this case. I am disappointed that edit warring over this was necessary however - ultimately these matters can be determined by consensus or refered to the bureaucrats if such a consensus is not evident. WjBscribe 15:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Comments should not be stricken unless there's proof beyond a doubt that vote fraud occurred. Even if EMB is a sock of Mr. Gustafson, there was no "vote fraud" beyond not coming clean about the user's identity; should Gustafson opposed under his account, that'd of course be another story. A mention of the checkuser case below the vote should be sufficient. Ral315 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations later proven false. These are two different people. -- Ned Scott 09:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed this up, and given this Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pookeo9 creation by the same user, have a suspicion that this may have been a 'test' page. Would ask a Bureaucrat to take a look at this, as it don't have a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere in a positive manner. SkierRMH (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed by another administrator. Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I just got an email with the following text:

dear sir i am [name redacted], that have create two accounts and let me explain why
1) i discover that guisongs appear in all links, and i wanted appear "guilherme schroeter"
instead. THAT IS WHY I CREATED A SEOND ACOUNT SINCE I CANNOT RENAME "guisongs" TO GUILHERME SCHROETER.
PLEASE I AM HONEST PERSON, COMPOSER, AND I WANT ONLY ONE ACCOUNT DISPLAYING 
GUILHERME SCHROETER AND NOT GUISONGS.
CAn YOU HELP ME ON THIS?

The accounts referred to are:

• Guisongs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• Guilherme Schröter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reproduce this to give the sense of the original, and because the user is openly editing under his own name and none of this references private material. At present the first account above is shown as a sockpuppet of the second.

Both accounts are operated by the same IP, and that IP has no edits except those two accounts and the IP itself (when not logged in).

Can we somehow merge or rename or otherwise help this user regularize the situation?

Passed to crats noticeboard in case user rename is part of the answer.

Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, currently, it is not possible to merge accounts. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible for the sysadmins to reassign edits, however, it takes exceptional circumstances for them to do so. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone let the user concerned know this? *1* And generally fix whatever seems right to fix? He seems genuinely upset. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

*1* FT2, why could you not let the user know? The user may well be genuinely upset but I am very suspicious of Sayoko Isozaki who had done no edits except to copy&paste (a sin also commited by Guisongs) the Guilherme Schröter article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I could not help noticing that he also has a double identity on Yahoo profiles: as schroeterus and guisongs! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The candidate has withdrawn; see User talk:GlassCobra#RE:Your Rfa. Thanks! GlassCobra 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

After personal reflection, and other private measures by email, I wish to regain the +sysop flag after it was voluntarily removed under non-controversial circumstances. I retired around 10 days ago, but requested it be removed on Monday. Any opinions on this are also displayed on my userpage. Regards, Rudget. 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Objection! Rudget has been flipflopping constantly about this. And I'm not sold on his story. There were clearly controversial circumstances when he resigned, his account was supposedly compormised, and that's a very serious issue. Maxim_(talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you perhaps be more specific than "flipflopping constantly?" He had the mop for a week, voluntarily gave it up when he "retired" (when really it was just a wikibreak) and now wants it back. Do you have diffs to justify a rather dramatic statement "flipflopping constantly"? Keeper | 76 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This was very clearly a resignation in controversial circumstances. A potentially compromised account, a story about a cousin who is apparently familiar with ANI, and guarantees of telling people what this cousin's account name is to clear things up which, as far as I know, were never fulfilled. I'd be very disappointed if any 'crat decided to perform a resysop without another RfA. Will (aka Wimt) 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Will can you provide links regarding the above? Rudget, it may be valuable to have a more detailed response from you. - Taxman ^Talk 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. What do you require? Rudget. 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of the above information and how you feel it does not involve controversial circumstances. Links to the above referenced discussions would also be great. If the cousin's account name is relevant, then that too may be required, though depending on the circumstances, sending it privately (to say all active bcrats and/or arbcom members) may suffice. I have the possible benefit of not knowing the backstory here. - Taxman ^Talk 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the main edit in question here can be seen here which shows a proficiency in templates at least. I was apparently incorrect insofar as the ANI point goes, as Rudget assures me this edit was him back in control of his account. The point about his cousin can be seen here where he says it was him who made the edit and states he is trying to get his cousin's account name (which apparently he was unable to do). Given I was incorrect about the ANI part of it, I am less concerned now, though I would still be disappointed if the account was resysopped and then immediately renamed as he apparently intends (as Martinp23 also notes). Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, on your user page you state that you plan to seek a rename. The circumstances under which you resigned your adminship could be viewed as sufficiently controversial to prevent an immediate resysopping, although WJBscribe's comment below does make me feel that withholding that from you might not be "fair" given precedent, though I'm not decided. That said, I'm not sure if you retain the trust of some large part of the community as a result of what happened, though only time will tell. The real problem I see here is that you're looking to run away from whatever mistakes were made on your current account by getting a rename, and yet wish to retain the sysop rights. As far as I'm concerned, it's got to be one or the other. Either live with your mistakes (be that leaving the computer on or playing a stupid prank), or start completely afresh and get the community's input again. I get the feeling that your aim in being renamed would be to invoke your right to vanish without actually vanishing - something which, to me and many others, becomes totally unacceptable when sysop flags are being transferred covertly for no good reason (a "good reason" would be classed as serious personal attacks, off wiki, directed at an admin). I hope I'm being coherent here: my main message is that it should only be one or the other that you have - rename or resysop. Not both. Martinp23 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree you shouldn't change your username and get resysopped. You have a solid editor reputation on wiki as Rudget and I believe you should retain the name and get your buttons back. But I agree, to avoid the drama of a reconfirmation/recall RfA with an RTV involved (see this recent example, you should do one or the other, not both. Doing both creates the apearance of cabalism and doesn't help the admin v. editor trust issues that seem to be growing. Get your tools back and be Rudget, or disappear and work your way back anonymously to another RfA several months from now. I hope you stay "Rudget". Keeper | 76 19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure where the opposition to this request comes from. Rudget tells us he left a computer signed in to his admin account at his home and someone else used it in the meantime, posting a notice that Rudget had been involved in a accident. Sysop tools were not misused. A minor security breach resulting in no damage is surely not cause for a desysoping. Indeed, the admins whose accounts were actually hacked in May 2007 due to very weak passwords (including password itself) had their access restored. As a worse case scenario, Rudget lied about th situation and posted the notice of his death to his userpage himself. I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion and WP:AGF should lean us towards accepting the story. As I understand it the cousin refused to give the name of his account - how was Rudget to extract this information? I'd like to be persuaded that desysoping was a potential outcome of this security breach. If it wasn't, I'm not persuaded there is a basis for us refusing to return the bit. The precedent seems to be that access is restored in these cases. WjBscribe 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here, here WJBscribe – well said. The incident that took place would definitely not have resulted in Rudget being desysopped – he made a mistake (he left his admin account left on, or played a bit of a sick joke). His tools were not used inappropriately, and at worst, there were user conduct issues involved here, not admin conduct. Controversial circumstances are when a user desysops themselves in or do stop a forced desysopping, or where desysopping was a likely occurrence – this is not what happened in this case, and therefore does not need a new RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not sure I believe Rudget's story. In addition, I agree with Maxim (if I understand what he means correctly) that it's quite short sighted to quit and leave, then come back within the space of a week or so. Regardless, this has nothing to do with his adminship tools. I agree with WJBscribe's basis for resysopping. I'm sure there'll be plenty of people watching Rudget closely. --Deskana (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with the rest, I don't agree that it has nothing to do with the admin tools. It speaks to maturity which speaks to likelihood to use the tools well. But I am somewht swayed by the argument that nothing remotely in the realm of that which would get anyone de-adminned has been done. That's not the greatest standard in and of itself since a lot of people feel admins can nearly get away with murder without losing their admin rights. The fact that it is so far from what would get someone considered for de-adminning says more. In the end I'm on the fence leaning slightly toward not granting the tools, but clearly more bcrats agree with granting the tools so someone go for it. - Taxman ^Talk 02:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I were a bureaucrat, I'd be leaning towards giving him the tools back. We'll wait for an explanation since he offered to give one, but it doesn't look like any serious harm was done. I see it as best-case scenario, we get back a great editor who did very well on his recent rfa, and things will go smooth, plus he knows to be a bit more careful about logging off of his home computer. Really the worst case scenario is that his cousin gets on the comp again, but i think Rudget knows better now. It's a weird occurance what happened, but there's nothing reconfirmation worthy about what transpired. Short version: What WJBscribe said. Wizardman 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• !vote for +sysop back, due to use/misuse/abuse of admin tools not being related to desysopping. Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Rudget first asked to be +sysop on Meta before asking here. See here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose Rudget being automatically granted the tools back. This thread alone shows controversy, which would be bested worked out in a RfA. Along with that, I don't believe Rudget's story. What are the chances that 1) He leaves his computer logged in 2) His cousin comes in and makes an edit to AN/I 3) He's involved in some serious car accident and 4) His mother made the post about the accident and understands the wikimark (using the <pre> as seen in wimt's diff above). Yes, he didn't (or his account didn't, whoever was using it) abuse the sysop tools, but I'd like to see a full explanation from Rudget of what really happened and proof he wasn't sitting behind the computer making these edits. Mønobi 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So you admit he didn't abuse his bit, but say that he can no longer be trusted with it? It doesn't make sense to me. He goofed, even if he did or didn't make that edit himself. Controversial circumstances are reserved for when someone has a chance of being desysopped against their will when they resign the bit - this was not going to happen in this case at all, he only got desysopped because he wanted to be, therefore with the respect to getting his tools back, there's no controversy. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way - would the community have been able to reasonably get Rudget desysopped for the edit which was made (by him or not) to his user page? I'd be surprised, though of course "under a shadow" and "controversial" circumstances require the admin's actions to generally held to a higher standard prior to resysopping than they might have been prior to desysopping. As Deskana says though, lots of people will be keeping an eye on Rudget whatever happens, and as long as he doesn't get a user rename through too, we should be able to keep an eye on him and make sure the tools aren't abused, if there is any risk of it. Perhaps Rudget could undertake to join CAT:AOR, for whatever good it will do? Martinp23 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions:

Which admin tools were abused during this incident?

Which articles were compromised during this incident?

Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was abused or compromised on this occasion, although the potential was there. Next time (if there is a next time) something more dire may happen with access to an admin account. However, since this time nothing apart from minor disruption occurred, I think Rudget should have his admin access returned. If he wishes to make a rename, he should be allowed, but should ask it publically so it is accountable. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Majorly (again! - wow three times in one lifetime!). A transparent renaming or none at all, if the account is to retain admin rights. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of a general thought... why does Rudget need the tools back so badly? What indication do we have he'll edit properly again? That he has taken steps to prevent from a similar incident happening? Can't Rudget wait for a few weeks, let the dust settle down, and ask for his tools back then, as we'll know he's back editing, and not for some silly "status" thing, and then it will be more appropriate to give tools back to an individual whom the community entrusted to be an admin relatively recently in an RfA, and who demonstrates that he will use the tools again? I don't know if Rudget will edit if given the tools back, I'm still not completely sold on his story, there are too many holes in it. Maxim_(talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You can read why Rudget wanted admin tools here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudget 2. In response to "What indication do we have he'll edit properly again?" One answer is: no tools were abused and no articles were disturbed during this incident. As far as I can tell, this stunt by Rudget or by Rudget's cousin affected only Rudget's user page. Rudget may have lost points with some people on a personal level, but Rudget did not abuse any admin tools and no articles were disturbed. Kingturtle (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, promote him. Majorly (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't promote without a clear consensus to do so, which I don't see right now. Kingturtle (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an RfA. Two other bureaucrats who have posted here agree to resysopping, as do most of the editors here, as well as some neutral users. We shouldn't need to wait any longer over this. It's only causing stress to the user in question (I know the feeling). Can a bureaucrat please hurry up and switch it back on, and let us never speak of this again. Majorly (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"as do most of the editors here"...no, I count five editors here, more than a third, who have strong concerns about this. There is no clear consensus yet, in my book. Kingturtle (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, the fact that his account was supposedly compromised means that he could have done a big mess. If he posted that note himself, he shouldn't be even editing. Maxim_(talk) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support resysopping this admin. The "controversial circumstances" (formerly "under [a] cloud") language handed down by the Arbitration Committee typically relates to admins who are the subject of something like a pending arbitration case and is not relevant here. Of course a bureaucrat should feel free to ask for appropriate assurances that (e.g.) the account will be logged out when not in use or that the password has been made more secure or whatever is applicable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to go by the letter of a rule? Maxim_(talk) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but in this situation the letter of the rule coincides with what's best for Wikipedia. I specifically asked somebody to inform Rudget that I hoped he would return. Now here he is, and we have lots of work for him. I support +sysop for Rudget. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and you know the bigger deal we make out of non-controversial re-sysops the less likely admins are going to ask to have the bit removed when they feel it's the right thing to do for themselves. They shouldn't resist or be afraid of giving them up because they might have to fight to get them back...in non-controversial cases of course. RxS (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Would also support re-sysopping. Ral315 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think a key question to ask is: Would people be actively seeking for Rudget to resign his sysop bit if he hadn't have given it up on his own accord? Given that the incident happened a week ago, and up to the point he resigned, no real attempts were made to get him to resign, there aren't strong enough controversial reasons. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well... Let's see. He isn't the first user/admin to have his password / account compromised, nor will he likely be the last. The person that gained access to his account, was said to have another account here, hence the familiarity with ANI / templates. Frankly, I see no good reason not to believe him, and, even if I didn't believe him, I still fail to see how this would be controversial. It's not like he got desysopped, trying to evade an arbcom case or whatever. I'd suggest, that we just give him his bit back, and put this behind us already. SQL^{Query me!} 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have been inclined to agree, had it not been for the apparently concurrent requests for a rename and the admin bit back. That doesn't seem to be entirely above board to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, let me disclose that I was Rudget's admin coach. I'm still doing "new admin" coaching with him. I have always found Rudget sincere and eager to learn and do the right thing. I feel a rename is unwarranted and would cause excessive wiki drama, as would an Rfa, which I also feel is unwarranted and would cause needless drama (like a reconfirm one we just had that was unneeded). As for the incident with his cousin, I was one of the first to see that posting and was on IRC when it happened. I have always felt this incident was very out of character for Rudget, so I believe him; and even if I'm wrong and it really was Rudget, no admin abuse or article damage occurred and I'm sure Rudget will not let this happen again. No one has mentioned one thing, that I hope Rudget has already done--change his password to a good strong/complex password. I'm also sure he now keeps his screen locked. We've been emailing all along, even when he "retired". I agree with the bcats, that the circumstances of this case do not warrant him not getting his bit back; so I feel the outcome should be to give the bit back and not rename him. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say what RsX has said. Rudget announced retirement and thereafter still retained sysop privileges for about a week. Had he simply started editing again, he would still have those sysop privileges. Rudget acted responsibly and out of a sincere effort to protect Wikipedia by asking to have his account desysopped when he believed he had permanently retired. I feel that he should not be penalized for that responsible action. To withhold the sysop rights from Rudget at this point in time would set a precedent encouraging others in future to leave admin accounts unattended for long periods of time in similar circumstances. The large number of welcome messages at User talk:Rudget illustrates the support Rudget has with the community. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone wholly unconnected with all participants, except for having been in support at Rudget's RfA, I see no reason to withhold the tools from him. I feel that his story is believable, but even in the very unlikely event of his being personally responsible for what would be a veru uncharacteristic piece of editing, it was not an abuse of admin tools. Furthermore, his immediate voluntary relinquishing of his sysop privileges shows, in my view, a highly honourable approach and attitude which we should recognise. I feel that if he deserved the tools after his very recent RfA, which is obviously the case, then he still desrves them. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, if Rudget posted the dying message, that's a gross abuse of our trust; by extension, that's abuse of our trust for sysop tools; Rudget could have gone on a spree à la Robdurbar instead of that message. Maxim_(talk) 14:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One should not be punished for what could have happened. An armed robber is not convicted of murder simply for carrying a gun. Kingturtle (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IF he already did one thing to abuse our trust, what's the guarantee he will a. not get bored again and do something similar and b. he could have, yes, to possibly quit (and I'm throwing out possibilities, not allegations) go on a spree à la Robdurbar to make it stick. Of course, the question is whether Rudget resigned under controversy, and with the diffs Wimt has shown, and my assertions and statements and hypotheses, I think it was controversial. Maxim_(talk) 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If he did this sort of thing again, I would consider your argument valid. At the moment, you are violating one of our most important guidelines: Assume Good Faith. What makes you think he'll vandalise? (Btw, stop comparing him to Robdurbar - Rob was a reincarnated banned vandal, nothing like Rudget) Majorly (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget,

What came of your cousin's oversight request? Kingturtle (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter of the well-being of the project, a rogue sysop will cause a hell of a lot of trouble. Why am I not assuming good faith here? Because I don't believe his story, I think he wrote the message to quit, and I don't trust him with a +sysop account now, if he edits solidly for a couple weeks, I'll be singing a different tune. See wimt's comments. As this discussion related to whether Rudget's resignation was under controversial circumstances, I still believe it is. Maxim_(talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To take another example of a compromised admin account: AndonicO. One of his school "mates" edited the main page with his account, vandalising it in effect. He was desysopped, and then resysopped without any kind of caution or anything. What if one of his friends had done a similar thing? What would you have done then? As far as I can see, AndonicO has done nothing but good work since the hijacking... what makes you think Rudget will be any different, other than the fact the person who hacked his account did something worse, although didn't actually do any damage, unlike AO's account. Majorly (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AO didn't go and create a big fuss about it, he kept his head high, he remained editing, and he certainly didn't quit to return a couple of days later. Maxim_(talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem with Rudget doing that? He's not abused any admin tools, and he'd still be here now if it wasn't for the unfortunate incident. Stop trying to create drama out of nothing, please. Majorly (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of abusing admin tools, it's a matter of trust. Did Rudget resign under controversial circumstances? In my book, that was quite controversial. I could be the only one who thinks so? Quite possibly, but I'm trying to raise genuine concerns, and you're throwing wild accusations around, quite possibly due to you disliking the user who posted them. That's not very smart, don't you think so? ;-) Maxim_(talk) 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I dislike your "concerns", not you. Don't take it so personally. Majorly (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget is clearly not being entirely open though, which I think is arguably worse than abusing admin tools. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been very clear, his account was hacked by his cousin. Simple as that. Majorly (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that's clear so far is that he's said that his account was hacked by his cousin. But his answers to subsequent questions have been either evasive or incomplete. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I shall be replying within the next 30 minutes or so. Rudget. 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The actual response here has been good even if not what I expected, but community discussion is direction and progression, and so therefore something which I advocate. I myself, on second thoughts, do actually see this as "controversial" - although I'll probably be needing to find a better synomnym (see below). I retired under these circumstances, something without no precedent, because of the sheer drama that was a result of my cousin's editing, see my credentials for an example. Of course, there is no point in me attempting to persuade those who still [incorrectly] don't believe that it was cousin at the helm. I know the account name would have been a massive effort for trying to further this investigation, and I too as Deskana does, want to know that name, why wouldn't I? Would I not wish for a punishment after all this? It is more of a belief issue here, and I believe the same applies to some other areas where there can be no diffs, no measures taken to prevent this sort of action ever occuring again. If those who remain unconvinced, and rely upon instincts that I may have been "attempting to retire", then that remains their decision, however I do respect Maxim's judgement to not entirely enclose any opportunity to regain adminship. Of my 11,000 edits to en.wp, none have been made in this wreckless manner, and as Anthony says, it doesn't reflect the true nature that I brought here in April. In response to multiple questions, I have the replies below:

a) I will currently not be asking for a rename, and nor for the forseeable future (that being until whatever may come), because of the points raised here since last night (GMT). Transparency is a key issue here, and I wish not to be seen as to be "hiding away" from this event under a 'protective blanket' that could be a rename.

b) I understand many of the concerns here, but in all honesty, I will probably never be able to satisfy the answers here, and even if or when I do "get" (as of now, I don't think I will) the account name, it'd probably be after this discussion has finished, and the significance of that piece will have been lost. However, I am surprised by some editors here nevertheless, the 'presumptions' I have read are not in proportion to the incident (although some could argue either way) and the assumption of good faith has not been acted upon, at least not entirely.

c) In response to Rx StrangeLove, I have to agree. This was partially the rationale I had when retiring; how was I suppose to regain any sort of credit, after being publicly humiliated on my own userpage? How could I possibly ever retain the respect the community may have had prior to this event? It certainly wouldn't be by asking for adminship, and then retiring again, surely. Why would I retire, voluntarily give up the bit and then return solely for this purpose. This will hopefully intermediate in this situation, and show I do have a aptitude for returning. Situations involving administrative matters where those who may have undergone successful requests for adminship cause more drama than ever intended, and it is not acceptable - in my opinion - for people to assume that those involved may have had wrongdoing in their capacity and try to find ways of persuading others based on nothing but a supposition, but for those that do, it is their choice.

I'm not going to shy away from this incident, and nor am I going to threaten to retire/quit if not re-promoted. I respect any decision that will be made, and whether or not a consequence of this discussion or not, I still, at least, think that Wikipedia itself will be better off with me on it and rather than off. Regards, Rudget. 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You say that you're not going to shy away from this incident, which is of course admirable. So can you perhaps say a little about why you combined this request to be resysopped with a request for a name change? And as a supplementary question, can you explain what you mean by this statement on your user page: "After much thought and deliberation between my original editing patterns and the way I shall desire to edit - I have decided to return." In what way will the way you edit in future be different from what it has been in the past? I'm also curious about how it is that you know your cousin made an oversight request when you don't know your cousin's account name, something you say that FloNight would be able to verify. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I initially combined the bit request with a name change thought because of the ways in which this incident has affected the credentials of my alias, Rudget. I, as stated, will not be performing that request now in response to the above concerns, and hopefully that has already been discussed to a reasonable length. My editing won't be that much differently to before, I guess this was just a different way of expressing that. Otherwise, the request for oversight came from this account, not the one recognised as pertaining to my cousin, and thus not being able to identify the account name of my relative. This probably just adds to the "unbelievability" of the 'story' - but this is, as I said before, your choice to make. Rudget. 19:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining about the oversight request. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, in general why would that add to the unbelievability if your cousin made the edit and the oversight request? Others have said you said this edit was you back under control of your account. Is that correct? I think it would really help if you were more clear about the timing of events. - Taxman ^Talk 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because, this is the attitude of some people. Facts or not, belief is still an issue. I know that, you know that, but what am I suppose to do when face with people who are unwilling to change their perspective? And yes, I was in control as Wimt says above. The first edit to ANI, where it states "Please don't do that" comes from me. Rudget. 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What does "under your authority" mean? It implies that it wasn't you that made the posting, but someone acting for you. But just to clear up the point raised by JayHenry, how long after the posting saying that someone had been contacting local hospitals was that posting made? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Under my authority would imply to me, I was in control. I've not so far been enlightened with the timeline of events outside of en.wp. Rudget. 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What's bothering me is that you never seem to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. "It would imply"? Was it you that made that posting or not? And the timeline of events on en.wp would at least be a start, as this alleged RTA happened here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You may see that I changed it to it was me that posted it. Rudget. 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no such thing. What I see is that you have changed it to say that you were in control. In control of what? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Add another user supporting the restoration of the flag. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be difficult, but I don't see at all. Your cousin took control of your account and posted this story. Then, you got back to your computer within moments of the mention that a real world investigation into what happened had begun (i.e. Majorly calling hospitals) and posted that it was not true. Then, your cousin got back onto your account and filed an oversight request. You saw him do this or he told you, so you got back on to notify us that FloNight can back this up. Meanwhile, your cousin is so familiar with Wikipedia that he knows about the Oversight process, but knowing you share an interest in Wikipedia he has never mentioned his account name to you, which articles he edits, and you have never interacted on the site, and the time that he was staying at your house he never logged onto his account himself? AGF doesn't mean that if I tell you I'm a hippopotamus you have to believe it. I'm sorry Rudget, but I too am really struggling to understand what happened. --JayHenry (t) 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's so hard to understand. He said his cousin had edited Wikipedia; he didn't say his cousin was the kind of dedicated Wikipediholic who just has to log into his Wikipedia account while visiting at someone else's house. I've told people I edit Wikipedia without necessarily mentioning my username to them. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's so hard to understand either. Some people choose to believe Rudget's version of events, and others find it incredible. Let's see how Rudget conducts himself over the next few months. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't attempt to persuade you, my arguments rest above. Should this thread be placed on a daughter page? Rudget. 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do wish a better attempt had been made to explain what happened, but regardless I think this whole episode is unlikely to recur and I agree that it doesn't have anything to do with the admin tools. I won't press the issue any further. --JayHenry (t) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If this episode had happened before Rudget's recent RfA, and his explanation of it been equally difficult to believe, would his RfA have passed do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do. 1 bad edit (and I don't care if it was Rudget, teh Kat, the Cousin, or the lamp falling over on the keyboard) out of 11000 is a 0.00909% mistake rate, or for you glass mostly full types, a 99.99091% success rate. The mainpage wasn't deleted. Nobody got blocked or unblocked. And if he were a "regular" editor with fewer buttons, nothing was changed except his userspace anyway. Time to move on as there is nothing to see here. The 'crats have this one right. Perhaps though, Malleus, you can start a discussion regarding controversial vs. noncontroversial in a more general , non-Rudget-y sense? I think this episode, if nothing else, has proven that the community has a vastly different idea about what fits under that umbrella and I would be happy to participate in that discussion. Keeper | 76 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Your personal remarks I am prepared to ignore, but if you feel that my insistence on "honesty" in an admin is in any way controversial, then please feel free to go ahead with whatever it is that you appear to be threatening me with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for further drama. Please stop now. Rudget. 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer Malleus's post above: No, I don't believe his RfA would have passed if this episode had happened beforehand. I don't even believe that it would have been close. But I'm not sure that's the standard we should be using to judge whether or not he can be reflagged. --JayHenry (t) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to ask the obvious question, if he wouldn't have been flagged, then why should he be re-flagged? He was, after all, only an admin for a matter of days anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two ways to look at it: 1) Would he have failed an RFA after the incident happened? I think so. But 2) Would he have been desysopped after the incident happened? I think not. Both are logical enough, but precedent seems to suggest that #2 is the customary consideration in these situations. --JayHenry (t) 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've said all that I intend to say on this episode. I don't doubt that Rudget will get his admin bit back, and that he will shortly afterwards disappear under another new name, any more than I doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. Time will tell :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW here's my take on this. I do find Rudget's story difficult to believe, but I also believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and as no serious harm was done then I'd have been all in favour of him being resysopped without any fuss. The simultaneous request for renaming was, though, a serious error of judgement, too soon reversed when it became a sticking point; but perhaps only temporarily reversed until the admin bit is back. I would prefer admins to display a bit more common sense than that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial

I would strongly encourage the crats to define controversy so that it is not ambiguous. Additionally, Rudget was not desysopped or pending any process that would risk desysopping. Are the crats exercising discretion, or do we as a community need to further define and cruft this for the crats? Regards, Mercury (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I would suggest from the responses above, that controversial is in fact a poor word to choose. As I noted earlier, there was plenty of controversy surrounding the events. A potentially hijacked account, a false story of an accident, a large thread on ANI, a phone call to the hospital and an explanation disputed by some but not others certainly satisfy the dictionary definition of controversy. However, as many 'crats have also pointed out here, no actual admin tools were misused (though certainly there was a risk they could have been) and, had Rudget not resigned, he would not have been at risk of desysopping. If that latter definition is what the 'crats wish to use as their rationale for whether they will resysop those who relinquish the tool voluntarily then fine, but please could they clarify this so we do not have to use a horribly ambiguous term like "controversial" anymore. Will (aka Wimt) 14:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Defining it can only lead to more wikilawyering on the exact definition. I think the best thing is to let us continue use our best judgement for what counts as controversial and then we can discuss it as a group exactly as we are if needed. If people no longer feel it's best for us to do that, then instead of the increased wikilawyering from trying to come of with an unambiguous definition (which isn't possible if you think about it) it would be better to decide bcrats should only promote based on RfA results. If that's what the community feels is best, that is what we are here for. But I think it's clear only two of those are good options. - Taxman ^Talk 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this has become repetitive and circular. The crats need to decide. The bottom line here is even if Rudget was the culprit, he'd not be desyssoped, so he should get the bit back. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, this may need to be defined and the way the crats proceed with this may need to be also defined. There is probably too much discretion and not enough parity. Perhaps adding a small section into the applicable policy may minimize mess next time this happens. Mercury (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "under controversial circumstances" was coined by me during the so-called Giano arbitration case in 2006, as one of the possible replacements for "under cloud" (as in, "X resigned adminship under [a] cloud"), which I thought was needlessly inflammatory. No attempt was made by me, nor I think by the six arbitrators who supported the principle that was enacted, to encapsulate all the circumstances surrounding a resignation that might eventually occur. Ultimately, unless the resignation is within the context of an arbitration case itself, whether to resysop (without a new RfA) or not is within bureaucrat discretion. In this case, as noted above, I believe the user should be resysopped immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• If we really need a mini-RFA to re-sysop the guy, then he's got my "support" vote. I find the whole thing rather silly, though. --Carnildo (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Enough of the process - resysop Rudget ASAP - this is quite frankly a joke and waste of time - there's nothing controversial about this, and I'm disapointed with those causing drama. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• What I find disappointing, but not especially surprising, is that this "drama" as you like to call it has made it very apparent that a lower standard of behaviour is acceptable from an administrator than it is from a regular editor. Rather a sad indictment of wikipedia's standards of governance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It's not okay for an (former) sysop to make up a story for personal entertainment. Mønobi 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The question is, whether the incident involved administrative tools or not. If it did, then I think he should have to go through RFA again. But since it didn't, and at worst, was disruption based on regular editing, the punishment, if any, would be a block, which I think is rather unnecessary in this case; his short timeout was more than long enough to cover anything he may or may not have done. See this arbitration case, for example, where an administrator was banned for 10 days (not desysopped) for his actions in closing a discussion early (an editorial move). Ral315 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Er, I might be missing something here, but where was the "misbehaviour" and making up stories? Assume he's telling the truth, please! Rudget would not do something like that. There's no lower standard here. Majorly (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support re-sysop for Rudget, none of the wikidrama, neither the unsupported accusations nor the vague attempts at explanation (or obfuscation), has anything to do with the technical proficiency of the editor and abilities as an administrator.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but at this time I think it would be best if Rudget didn't get the mop back just yet. Mainly to shut up everyone who's complained here, by editing for a few weeks, and then re-requesting. Trying not to mention Keilana here, but that was also a case of "do what'll shut up the drama-stirrers even if you'd rather not", and I think we should do the same here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Resysopped

I have restored Rudget's administrator access. I have followed the debate above with interest but I don't think any further progress will be made if the discussion continues. Bureaucrats have a discretion to return admin access to those who resigned it voluntarily. I do not think such controversial circumstances as should proclude this return of access exist in this case and am therefore exercising that discretion. Factors I weighed as particularly significant were:

1. The incident that prompted his resignation was a brief misappropriation of his admin account, admin tools were not abused and no harm was done (except perhaps to Rudget's reputation)
2. Rudget resigned his admin access some days after the incident and no action was being taken against him at the time
3. The short period between his resignation and this request mean that there has been no prejudice to anyone who wishes to seek sanctions against him in doing so
4. I have not been persuaded that the circumstances are such that Rudget could have been required to relinquish admin access without his agreement

Some have suggested they harbour doubts about Rudget's explanation of the incident and that they will be keeping a close eye on him in future. That includes arbitrators and checkusers. It is therefore my conclusion that returning admin tools to Rudget does not present a danger to the project. I feel that my decision is in keeping with past precedent of returning access to accounts that were hijacked once one is reasonably satisfied that they are back in the hands of their rightful owner. WjBscribe 11:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The right call. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As stated above, I have my doubts about Rudget's explanation, but returning his tools was the right course of action. I will be watching closely, personally. Best of luck to him. --Deskana (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• WJBscribe, that was probably the right course of action. Accounts can be hijacked but not for malicious purposes - to give a real-life example from personal experience, when I was in university some 2 - 3 years ago, someone's computer account got hijacked by another student and it was then disabled, but when it was found that nothing malicious had happened to the account, they promptly had their access restored by the technicians. However, the situation seems to have been resolved well enough. --Solumeiras (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• At last, thank you. Enough of this drama, please. Majorly (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good call. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well done, WJBscribe. I hadn't thought of your reason 3, but now that I see it it looks very relevant. Thank you for your wisdom, good judgement and assumption of good faith. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just a little Personal View I would like to add here, It will be really nice if Rudget will add his name to this Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall since his little charade has really gone unnoticed, I would have commented here earlier, but I didn't know this discussion was proceeding. The reason that I want him included in that category is because of what he did, and he sort of got away with it as well. I really can never trust an admin that makes a mockery out of what adminship is all about, though its good to note that he did not abuse his sysop bit which he only had for a week or so but what he did is very unbecoming for an admin and to avoid something like this happening again, It will be good that he added himself to that category, so that in the future, he will not get his sysop bit by going to the crats but through the proper channels i.e another RfA... --Cometstyles 10:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree with you, I think that recent events have demonstrated that it wouldn't make much difference whether Rudget added his name to that list or not. Administrators are free to make up their own rules on recall, and to change them if they should ever become an inconvenience. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please resysop me. My account was used abusively during an apartment robbery, the account is not compromised. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Link for bureaucrat: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Block of administrator RyanGerbil10. Hut 8.5 16:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see no reason not to re-sysop based on the thread at ANI. In addition is see no reason to create yet another round of drama. Let's press the button and move quickly on. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, please, no more drama. bibliomaniac15 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• The drama card again. I'm beginning to wonder whether that isn't some secret code for "Let's try and avoid any potentially embarrassing revelations coming out if this decision were to be subjected to a process of consensus." An admin apparently runs amok, then later claims to have had his apartment broken into. And by some strange coincidence the miscreant knew that admin's password and so was able to log into the PC. Credulity is stretched. Have you ever heard of anyone having a car accident, and then later claiming that their car had been stolen? Still, if it avoids "drama", then it's all for the greater good in Alice in Wikiland I suppose. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Malleus, sorry but you're wrong. "the miscreant knew that admin's password" Not being funny mate, but have you heard of cookies?Pedro :  Chat  23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite familiar with cookies thanks. Are you familiar with the Windows/Linux logon? To the best of my knowledge that does not involve cookies. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And are you familiar with leaving your computer on? Or even not having a login? I do both for my home computer. Viridae^Talk 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Per Viridae, in all likelyhood, assuming a Windows 2000/XP/Vista machine running IE 4+ or FF, no-one needs to know any passwords - if the machine is on and the account not logged out then anyone can edit .... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do you believe that to be a sensible thing for an administrator to do? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly sensible, my housemates are not idiots and wouldnt dream of touching my computer - when I did have a housemate that did use my computer she was hardly going to come to wikipedia and vandalise with an admin account. Viridae^Talk 23:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you've lost me there Viridae. You appear to be saying that anyone who visits your house is a potential wikipedia admin. Very smart. ;-) So what good are strong passwords if you never log off? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)It is just a website, there's no reason to require users to change their computing habits when they become an admin on the off-chance someone breaks into their home/apartment and uses their computer. A secure password on their admin account to prevent external password cracking should be enough. Mr.Z-man 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, If you want that argument, go talk to the dev's to make a forced log out after the browser is closed. I'm sorry, but I see zero value in your argument which is, in a nutshell = don't log out = poor Wikipedia admin. Think about it. Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and look, the one person who decrys drama is creating some. Leave it, Malleus, let the crats resysop Ryan and we can carry on with the enyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You misquote me. I don't decry drama at all, I am simply suspicious of "drama" being trotted out so often as a reason not to do the honourable thing. I have no doubt that Ryan will get his admin tools back, and in his particular case I really couldn't care less. I was simply observing that once again there appears to be some discrepancy in the standards of behaviour expected of different classes of editors. But of course, having now been told to "Leave it", I will say no more on this occasion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* You wern't told. You were asked to, as your argument was not germane to the matter at hand in terms of precedent or recent procedure. However the re-sysop has now been done. Let's move along. Pedro :  Chat  00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's brush any concerns about another automatic resysopping under the carpet. So much more convenient than anyone being obliged to provide credible excuses for their behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, anyone that comes to my house is a potential wikipedia admin, on the offchance that they have the temerity to start my computer up, go to firefox, go to wikipedia and then start editing/playing with my admin tools. However, I'm not sure who you live with/ assosciate with but none of my friends (or the friends of my housemates) are likely to be rude enough to use my computer without my permission or rude enough/stupid enough to go and vandalise wikipedia. The people I associate with have better things to do with their time. Had this not been the project where everything is reversible, I would likely have no had the browser remember me, but as it is... Viridae^Talk 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have lost what little of the plot you started with Viridae. You stated just above here that you left you computer on, and that you didn't even have a Windows logon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And, you Malleus seemed to have lost what little shred of dignity and civility you had by that comment. Pedro :  Chat  09:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently chosen to ignore the glaring discrepancies in Viridae's remarks in favour of a personal attack on me. Strange. I would also point out that even if what you claim about my civility and dignity were true, which I would dispute, that would in no way excuse your own incivility. Not unless you believe that "He started it" is an adult form of defence. However, as this is now a done deal, and Ryan has now got his admin tools back, there is clearly little to be gained by continuing with this discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the re-sysop. As February 4 is my birthday, this has turned out quite pleasantly. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumZiBoT.

Users are complaining about their watchlists, and more than 60,000 edits are planned :þ

Thanks a lot !

NicDumZ ~ 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) NicDumZ ~ 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, User:Clevelander (originally registered in 2005) recently changed usernames to User:Aivazovsky, and very soon afterwards, a new user chose "Clevelander" as their username. The funny thing is, some of Aivazovsky's old edits are now showing up as Clevelander's. I looked, and it seems they were contributions that were deleted at the time of the rename. I thought username change was able to affect deleted contributions? Is there a way that can be fixed by a Bureaucrat, or are contributions only reassignable automatically during a name change? Mangojuice^talk 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit in error. Apparently, Clevelander changed to Aivazovsky based on a request made on January 16th, 2007. Still this is a strange situation. Mangojuice^talk 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds familiar - deleted contributions aren't moved over during a rename and end up under the wrong account. I can't remember if there's a solution beyond asking a sysadmin to manually correct the database (which they may or may not be willing to do). --Tango (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been taken care of now; see WP:ANI#Break-in at User:Clevelander. The weird thing is, the contributions that didn't migrate properly were apparently not deleted when the user was renamed (and also, I couldn't find a rename log in this case). Mangojuice^talk 19:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into this. WjBscribe 22:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As this is may prove a controversial action, I will notify other bureaucrats of it. I have declined to grant a Bot flag to SquelchBot, which was listed at WP:RFBOT/A by Tawker. It is my opinion that the approval given at at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot#Big BAG Section is too equivocal. As I see it, the Bot Approvals Group is presently responsible for determining both the technical suitability of a proposed Bot and the consensus that it is compliant with policy. It seems to me that Tawker is only willing to sign off on the former of these. Unless the community (or BAG) intends bureaucrats to take a more active role in the Bot approval process, I cannot see that this is a valid approval. It seems to me that agreement needs to be reached on the desirability of this Bot (not just that its code is sufficient to perfom the proposed task without adverse server consequences). Thoughts? WjBscribe 22:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole reason that bot-flaggings have to go through a 'crat, just like the reason protected page edits have to go via an admin, is to make sure that a user with the right user groups is willing to make the change. So I fully support the right of any 'crat to decline a bot-flagging, especially when (as in this case) the reasoning is well-explained. One thing that grates with me slightly, though, is that the BRFA page is archived and marked 'do not change', which makes the action slightly hard to follow up; I wonder if reverting the closure might be a good idea? --ais523 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bot was subsequently approved by Betacommand [9] and, as the Bot is now to run unflagged, that removes the bureaucrat role from the process. WjBscribe 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct not all bots should have the bot flag. Anti-Vandal bots should not have their edits marked as bot, neither should, XLinkBot. (their edits should not be hidden from the RC feed) β^_command 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recently I was nominated a second time for adminship. I didn't accept, as I didn't think I was ready. Does this become a second failed attempt in the RFA records? VanTucky 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How could it possibly be considered a failed attempt when you didn't make the the attempt? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree here. Unless it was transcluded, accepted, supported, opposed, or withdrawn by you or someone else citing WP:SNOW, I don't see how it would bear any consequence towards a future RfA. Keeper | 76 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Generallly nominations that are not accepted by the candidate are simply deleted. Later ones overwrite them. There have however been cases where declined noms have been kept by the candidate and numbering has continued from them, so I think its a matter of personal choice. WjBscribe 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought "failed" was "closed with less than 50% support"? Daniel (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think that it still counts if it hasn't been accepted by the candidate in point. Rudget. 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, as, for instance, in the list of failed RfAs in the NoSeptember Admin Project, it seems that most, at least in formal terms, use "failed" to describe those RfAs in which support failed to reach 50 per cent and "unsuccessful" or "no consensus" for those RfAs that reached majority support but did not result in promotions (informally, of course, "failed" is often used to reference RfAs that do not result in promotion irrespective of their specifics; one notes, for instance, the use of the term in the "list of failed RfAs", which, of course, includes all unsuccessful RfAs). (To be sure, though, this doesn't seem applicable here, as a declined request will not reasonably be seen by anyone as a failed attempt.) Joe 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I figured that they weren't, but just thought I'd double check. Thanks for the help, VanTucky 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference here, I've deleted the RfA in accordance with VanTucky's request (asked on his talk page). There's no point in keeping the RfA, for when VanTucky runs for adminship again, keeping the RfA would have implied that VanTucky had two unsuccessful RfAs when in reality he only had one. Acalamari 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we kept nominations like that, poor ArielGold would have a boatload of "failed" RfAs... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why it's best to delete declined nominations. :) It wouldn't be fair to ArielGold to keep them. Acalamari 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quid pro quo, anyone? Dlohcierekim Deleted? 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That was obviously a dumb thing to say, but I don't think Abd had anything to do with it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy that deals with voting based on quid pro quo arrangements? 129.174.2.205 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because as far as I know it's never happened before. bibliomaniac15 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, we're already equipped to deal with it, by virtue of our having human and not automated bureaucrats. — Dan | talk 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said I'm human? Kingturtle (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All hail the reptilian bureaucrat! Ral315 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't dumb, it was just a farce WP:POINT. He's got an essay on his theory that this is what is really happening all the time when people participate in RfAs, XfDs, etc.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry allegations that have arisen during this RfA - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates - I have placed this RfA on hold. The findings of that SPP case are having a significant effect on the RfA but the candidate has not yet had an opportunity to respond to the concerns. Given that it still enjoys majority support, I don't think it is appropriate to withdraw it without the candidate's agreement. I will ask Snocrates whether he wishes to withdraw the RfA or would like to respond to the sockpuppetry matter and have the RfA resume based on his defence/explanation, which seems the fairest way to deal with this matter. WjBscribe 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A related matter: should User:CheckIntentPlease be unblocked? While it does seem that CheckIntentPlease was an SPA, the fact that their concerns have been vindicated should be taken into consideration. GlassCobra 20:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. I don't know if the main account even has a use for it anymore. John Reaves 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user on the basis that new information seems to indicate that they were not trolling, the stated block reason. The block appears to have been a good faith mistake action. I did not see any autoblocks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The block wasn't a mistake, at the time it was justified. That said, I have no problem with an unblock though I don't see what the rush was. John Reaves 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the block was based on information available at the time. Subsequent information showed that the block was not needed. The urgency was to avoid the user's main account getting caught in an autoblock. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 2 has pretty well melted down. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Closed. WjBscribe 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some confirmations at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group that are in need of closing by a crat. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, past practice was that BAG regulated its own membership and that bureaucrats were asked to weigh in only where consensus was unclear. That seems sensible to avoid the process becoming too "bureaucratic" (in the general sense). I suggest that a BAG member close all those where the consensus is clear and that only those where there is some difficulty reaching agreement need be refered to us. WjBscribe 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed one in which consensus was clear. Mønobi 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know past practice, I re-edited the BAG policy page to reflect that. MBisanz ^talk 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone mind stopping by Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anon126? I think it might be about time to call for the mercy rule. --jonny-mt 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You do know anyone can close it, right? Majorly (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Sam Korn closed it. Majorly (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked back through a few and noticed a mix of bureaucrats and admins closing WP:SNOW RfAs. Since I'm neither and there's no RfA equivalent to WP:DPR#NAC that provides clear-cut guidance, I thought it would be best to err on the side of caution and ask here. Though for what it's worth, I only thought to do that after I had the close set up on preview :) --jonny-mt 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the recent past, there was concern expressed over non crats snow closing too boldly. In this instance, it was the thing to do. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

True. But it's good to follow the instructions on WP:CRAT, such as removing the "Voice your opinion" link and updating the final tally, which wasn't done here. --Deskana (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah. I was so tempted on that one, but I did not want to mess up the process. Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This question does not matter, but, may I ask why RedirectCleanupBot was flagged this way, instead of a bureaucrat flagging it? On the requests for approval page, I saw something about it being given sysop rights before being flagged, so a steward had to do it. But this doesn't make much sense. Bureaucrats cannot remove administrator access, but I do not see why they cannot flag a bot that has administrator access. This is similar to how a bureaucrat makes an administrator a bureaucrat, the administrator has sysop rights, the bureaucrat just added to it. Could someone tell me how it could be any different for a bot? Thanks. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that there were two different pages to make someone into a sysop or a bot. (Special:Makesysop and Special:Makebot). I'm not sure whether it was intentional, but it was impossible to use Makebot over an account with +sysop. Hope that answers your question, Maxim_(talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Is it done through Special:Userrights now? If yes, is it possible to flag a bot with sysop rights with it? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I'm not a 'crat, but +bot +sysop +crat can be made using the same interface, so unless there's a hack preventing that, it's possible. Maxim_(talk) 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. As long as you are given the rights to assign (and/or remove) groups, you can do it through Special:Userrights. I'm not sure if enwiki ever got the configuration changes to make this possible though, as that's the only reason I could see that a B-crat would be using Makebot or Makesysop now. MakeXXX extensions started showing up when more permissions were being added and more "levels" being created. As Special:Userrights wasn't written to deal with this, the various extensions made it possible. The new Userrights makes that system largely obsolete though. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, RedirectCleanupBot was flagged before Special:Userrights was made available to bureaucrats locally (that has happened since I've been a bureaucrat myself). I presume now that interface is available, a bureaucrat could assign Bot status to an admin account locally. WjBscribe 07:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes WJBscribe, you are correct. Prodego ^talk 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been withdrawn by candidate, but is not closed. Dlohcierekim User:Dlohcierekim/deletion 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't too bold, but I went ahead and closed it. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have, but I'd already voted. Dlohcierekim 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed WP:CRAT. Look's OK to me. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where the candidate has withdrawn, I don't think it matters if someone has already participated in the discussion (as you aren't exercising any judgment). Anyone should feel free to close these. WjBscribe 07:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How does one actually go about closing an RfA after a candidate has withdrawn or per WP:SNOW? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are instructions on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. Majorly (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c over the actions of a bot and of course, a parallel MfD over that discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c. Since the bot owner has already said [10] he won't listen to a consensus reached at that page, and the people at that page want a binding consensus, there is sort of a shouting into the wind aspect. Since you guys (crats) at the end of the day flag and deflag bots, where (policy rfc, user conduct rfc, WP:BON, etc) and in what form (change of underlying policy, feelings on bot activity, etc) of consensus on a Bot would you require to act? MBisanz ^talk 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well remember that bureaucrats are not responsible for approving bots, only for flagging them. Bots can operate without flags if BAG approves that. Having local Bot Approvals Groups predates bureaucrats being able to assign bot status - previously requests were made to stewards based on the decision of the local groups. When bureaucrats gained the ability to flag bots (in April 2006) they adopted the same role as the stewards, flagging based on the recommendation of BAG. Although a bureaucrat could exercise their judgment and withdraw a bot flag, we are very unlikely to do this without a recommendation from BAG or instructions from ArbCom. It is probably only in a situation where members of the group could not agree that bureaucrats would need to decide ourselves.

I think it might be a good idea though for BAG to develop a mechanism for reviewing the approval of bots - a designated place where someone can raise problems with bots and BAG can evaluate whether to require changes to the bot's operation be made in order for approval not to be withdrawn. Of course this may be open to abuse from frivolous complainants but I presume BAG would be able to identify these... WjBscribe 07:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#-BOT_Process. Thanks for pointing me to the right group. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a place already exists, WT:BRFA. there is a reason that I said that I will not follow what is on Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c its a attack page full of lies and miss-statements. β^_command 11:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you consent to look at it if someone edited it to be more acceptable? Should I even have to ask that sort of question? Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO WP:BRFA isn't enough in this respect. Consensus (and the bots themselves) can and do change. There needs to be a process for governing bot (and bot owner) activity including withdrawing approval if necessary. Sure, bots can be blocked but that tends to be reactionary and only takes one admin. I had a bot blocked a few days ago too and it just seems that, for lack of sufficient process, the block (which was not set a time limit) was just forgotten. As far as BC's comment above, there are, without doubt, a lot of misstatements, misconceptions, and bitterness in that discussion but there is a lot of well-meant concern and justifiable distress about this matter too. It's not just about BC; we, as a community, need the ability to govern bots because when it comes down to it they are just too efficient. This bitterness and resentment seems to stem mostly from the lack of binding recourse either for the sake of justifying a bot, or for governing one. But as I said it's just my opinion. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably remiss for not directly linking to my latest creation Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_bot_privileges. Can that be adapted to your ideas? MBisanz ^talk 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• This strikes me as forum shopping trying to find someone, anyone who will step in and stop BCbot. You don't need the bureaucrats to de-bot flag. You need consensus (which you've not been able to achieve, even on the pages you reference) that this bot needs to be shutdown. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You did notice that the result of the thread was that he has set up a general process that can be used for any bot. How is that focusing on BCBot? You do get the difference between talking about a general case and a specific case? Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I was totally oblivious and absolutely, ridiculously, ineptly clueless. Come on. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this is a general point. Even if it was forum shopping (and I don't think it was, as BCB was only an example being used), it ended up producing a new process that might be useful if it catches on. You chose to focus on the way the thread started. I prefer to look at the end result. Similar to the BCB page that got redirected. I see it has something that has good points and became useful (looking at the end result regardless of how it started). You see how it started and see that as poisoning everything that followed (which is fair enough, but it is clear that not everyone agreed with you). it is a fairly common disagreement on how to deal with things, and because deepset principles are involved, MfDs and DRVs are the usual result. I did say I'd seen this type of thing happen before, you know. And I apologise for my rhetorical question that annoyed you. I know you aren't clueless, which is what frustrates me here. We can both understand what the other is saying, so why do we disagree so much? Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I did vote to delete Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c at MfD I believe, and I've voted against banning BCB, and against requiring him to divulge his source, and workd on Carcharoth's neutral policy oriented Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, and asked that Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c [11] be renamed and reoriented to be less pointy, so I'm not sure I'm a person whose been "trying to find someone, anyone who will step in and stop BCbot". I just felt this manner was being handled in such an ad-hoc fashion, that its result would be questioned and possibly be a big, pointy, waste of time. So I wanted to know what sort of discussion wouldn't be questioned, and have now, hopefully, created a process that in the future will avoid this sort of thing (dozens of AN/ANI threads, random subpages, MfDs, etc). MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy's request for adminship isn't showing up on the RfA report, despite it being added around 12 hours ago. Is it most probably a template infraction? Rudget. 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's there now. Normally when an RFA is missing it's an error in the ---- that are between every RFA. There needs to be one between every RFA, and at the top and bottom, otherwise the bot tends to miss RFAs. --Deskana (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just came across a comment by a new admin who did not even know of the existence of the MediaWiki namespace, which aside from indicating ignorance of some basic and obvious elements of Wikipedia could be potentially dangerous. —Centrx→talk • 07:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary for an admin to know everything. This is in reference to the MediaWiki thing. Besides, this message is generic, exactly what do you hope to accomplish? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is evidence that administrator standards need to be higher. The only persistence backlogs are in areas like copyright problems which the naive administrator does not help anyway. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you feel that administrator standards need to be higher because an admin you ran into didn't know about the MediaWiki namespace - so what do you propose the community should do? Everything on Wikipedia can be looked up and sorted through with minimal effort. How would WP:RFA be any different than it is now? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Course it's not necessary. This message sounds like trolling to me. There was tons of things I didn't know and still don't know. Guess I should be desysopped and banned. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you did not know of the existence of page protection, deletion, or blocking, would you be less knowledgeable about what you were applying for as an administrator, all of which are plainly "administrator tools" at Wikipedia:Administrators and everywhere else. If you do not know of the existence of page protection, deletion, or blocking, then yes you should be desysopped. The URL of the bottle-cap navigation template or tons of other things are not relevant. I don't see why you would be banned, except as a response to so ingeniously deceiving everyone into thinking that you are indistinguishable from a competent administrator. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what you said originally. Majorly (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you mean "potentially dnagerous", the potential danger is removed from the person ignorant of the MediaWiki namespace by removing the access by which he can edit the MediaWiki namespace. —Centrx→talk • 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the person doesn't know the MediaWiki namespace exists, isn't he or she unlikely to edit it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Until that unfortunate moment where he stumbles upon it and, finding it full of gibberish or a useless duplicate of the real site interface, deletes its contents. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That particular scenario suggests a level of sheer idiocy that hasn't actually been suggested by anyone. Are you really saying that we're promoting such moronic editors? I seriously can't picture a new admin going "what the hell is that? Well, I better just delete everything". EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I agree with that. I mean, if we are promoting such editors, things should change. However, no one's done that yet (and I doubt ever will). нмŵוτнτ 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Histicaly only a handful of admins have really known their way around the mediawiki namespace. Not something that comes up in day to day admin activities so it hasn't really mattered.Geni 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And even if an admin makes a good-faith mistake it's not big, and it's easily reversible. I once screwed the entire site for every anon user by forgetting to de-italicise while editing MediaWiki:Anonnotice. The result was the everything in all content was in italics. Maxim_(talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it should also be noted that deleting a MediaWiki: page merely makes the default message return. Nothing will crash or be harmed. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a major website; there should not be any errors in its interface. Simple accidental errors we might reluctantly accept, but errors that result because access was given to someone who, beyond not knowing some aspect and avoiding it, did not even know that he could break the site? It would be as if a person blanked the main page not because he were malicious, but because he did not know that he could edit protected pages! —Centrx→talk • 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Focusing on the MediaWiki namespace for a second, it's a one-line change to block admins from being able to edit it (and allowing only bureaucrats). The trick is finding consensus to do that. Or, a new user group could theoretically be created, but that would be kinda silly, methinks.

As for the larger issue of admins not knowing certain things, my recommendation would be to ask them at their RfAs. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen bureaucrats make formatting errors in the mediawiki namespace. There are parts of it that are less commonly used that bureaucrats probably don't have time for so admins being able to edit is useful.Geni 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Look Centrx, I deleted the Main Page once (and it logged twice >:( ) accidentally - the inconvenience is very temporary, and it's not really a big deal for the readers if that happens as it's reversed really quickly. Maxim_(talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And personally, I've discovered that you can do far more damage editing widely-used templates! ;) --Stephen 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh crap, I better go figure out what MediaWiki is before someone finds out I don't know anything about it. Oh wait, am I streaming my thought process into the edit window again? Oh double crap. Ronnotel (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever happened to helping out your fellow wikipedian? Many admins have many holes in their knowledge of Wikpedia. If you notice that, educate them. End of the problem. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. Not everyone has to know about every thing. As long as our admins are competent in the areas they operate in, we're fine. Friday (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Mediawiki namespace is not that important, though I personally have edited it a lot (264 times). I certainly wouldn't want to lose access to the Mediawiki namespace. I am more worried about an admin's knowledge of the blocking policy, protection policy, etc. Prodego ^talk 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• You could probably do a lot more damage with the MediaWiki namespace if you did know what you were doing... Mr.Z-man 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• That is very true. Prodego ^talk 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, I recently admitted, on AN/I of all places, that I've forgotten how to close AfDs. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I forget how to close XfDs all the time. Perhaps because I never really knew how, I just look it up whenever I do it. Prodego ^talk 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally press "1 year" when blocking instead of "indefinite" a lot. That always gets me for username blocks. bibliomaniac15 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to look it up every time I close an AFD. I do it so rarely that I've never memorised the process. --Tango (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should require 150 mediawiki talk edits and 200 portal talk edits for all new admins - it's important to have a well-rounded editing experience. --B (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume you're joking, and thus note you forgot the Category talk, Template talk, and Portal edits. If you're being serious, please show me a user who has 200 portal talk edits. Any user. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... either I have a very bad sense of humor or I should have used the {{humor}} template. I thought it was obvious I was joking. --B (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have considerably more than 200 portal talk edits, and I suspect that a number of other portal maintainers will do as well. I'm also the editor who once voted "Neutral" on an RfA due to lack of portal talk edits by the candidate (as a joke; the candidate had created a parody verse called The RfA Candidate's Song based on the Major-General's Song which mentioned such edits). This incident was the beginning of the en.wikipedia in-joke about the importance of portal talk edits for admin candidates. It may well be my most lasting contribution to the encyclopedia.-gadfium 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the mediawiki namespace when I became an admin and I did just fine. I have used that namespace perhaps 3 times. It is not mentioned in the admin reading material. Frankly as long as an admin has the sense to not do things they don't understand they they don't need to understand. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wate a minnut. Wut's a "media-wiki"? I be a clooless noo adiminz. Me thinks sumwon shud start a noo thred ware all adiminz kan konfess wut thay don't know how to be adiminz. Then evrywoon elss kan has laffs at tem. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, we shouldn't allow anyone to pass an RfA until they have successfully MfD'd at least one MediaWiki message. (For the record, that criterion admits me - once before I became an admin and once after - but excludes all other Wikipedia users.) --ais523 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I just delete them. The deletion policy doesn't really apply there if you know what you are doing. Prodego ^talk 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have G6 speedies in MediaWiki:-space too. --ais523 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask that the bureaucrats consider speedy closing all future reconfirmation RfAs, resysopping the former admin in question, and asking them to start a self-certified user request for comments instead? Thanks. If you need a community consensus that reconfirmation RfAs are a drama-inducing waste of time, let us know. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Some are a waste of time, some aren't. Majorly (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples? Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine. Gurch's. Walton One's. Actually, it's down to opinion. Majorly (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One that was a waste of time imo was Keilana's. I'm not aware of any others. Majorly (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If they're going to be closed as "promote" no matter the percentage, then this is probably the best option. Why go through the charade if the community commentary doesn't matter? Bellwether ^B_C 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me: if the consensus had been any less clear than it was on ^demon's, he wouldn't have been promoted. It was controversial, and I hope it never happens again. When will people learn - promoting at less than 75% will always be controversial. Why do it? Majorly (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like something that is amenable to a hard and fast rule. I'm concerned that while we place a great deal of emphasis on trusting bureaucrats with discretion, when they actually use it the result is an attempt to remove elements of that discretion. There have been some very well thought out comments on WJBscribe's talkpage that he will hopefully incorporate into his future decisions, but I personally think that whatever the merit of the decision itself it is precisely the sort of decision he is a bureaucrat to make.

This proposal demonstrates the difficulty with treating the RfA process as though it could be completed by bot: What would the rule be, above? All reconfirmation RfAs, or only ones with no previous controversial circumstances? What level of controversy is acceptable on the way out, and how do you tell? Do you really want to assume ahead of time that even sysops who resigned uncontroversially have been uncontroversial between then and the reconfirmation RfA? Perhaps you are saying that the community should have no input in reconfirmation RfAs, they should be barred, and all resysopping decisions should be made by bureaucrats? Maybe I'm wrong above about discretion - in some ways, this proposal imposes even more discretion. Avruch ^T 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the close of ^demon was wrong (well, I did oppose, and the % was way lower than the norm). This should not become standard. If someone runs for RfA again, they should be treated exactly the same as if it was a normal RfA. Majorly (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(in response to Majorly's previous post)Your (Majorly) RfA was a waste of time if I remember right... nothing good came off it except a bunch of drama. So was Walton's. And Gurch's (we all knew where it was going the moment it started... I certainly wasn't holding my breath). And now, so is ^demon's, because what the "community" said didn't really matter anyway when it came to the final closing. But yes, it's down to opinions. And who are we to say how people should utilize their precious time? We are all wasting time on wikipedia anyway. :) - TwoOars 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I supported that RfA and still find it completely wrong for WJBscribe to ignore the final result, and interject his own opinion. ^demon explicitly stated he was doing it to determine whether or not the community still trusts him to be an admin, and 63% support has never been a sign of trust. Vote/discussion/town meeting, if we begin ignoring people's opinion because they are reluctant, or hesitant to oppose/support, we end up with a situation where the closing 'crat can effectively justify any result. This was wrong, but nothing will ever change, no matter how much we talk about it. - auburnpilot talk 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(TwoOars) Well, I disagree with your last point :) My RfA, to me, was not a waste of time (and it would have continued till the end but an abusive checkuser decided to post false information about me and my IP address thus forcing me to withdraw). People opposed with good reasons, some stupid reasons but I learned a lot from it. And if it fell below the normal standard for passing, I would have asked to not be promoted. Majorly (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the time spent on reconfirmation RFAs could be spent on examining and questioning new candidates at RfA. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, you don't have to spend time on them? We have a week for both. That's plenty enough. Majorly (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote myself from a post a few weeks ago...

The decision on whether a nomination succeeds or fails is a subjective decision by an individual bureaucrat. The 75% threshold is a guideline, but it is not used as an objective measure. Eight nominees in 2007 were promoted without reaching the 75% mark (those marks were 74.3%, 74.2%, 73.9%, 73.3%, 73.1%, 70.5%, 68.4% and 67.3%). The percentage of support (support rate) is a guideline, not a clinching factor. Bureaucrats are given wiggle room. Quoting policy: "There is no precise "pass" or "fail" percentage, and the bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity." Kingturtle (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And now this one at 63%. At some point, the percentage has to mean something. Will we ever see anything below 50% be interpreted as consensus (after discounting invalid stuff), rather than a "trainwreck"? I would say if you find yourself discounting more than a certain percentage (eg. 10% of the !votes), that is a good indication that something has gone wrong with the process, and consensus will be near-impossible to judge. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The way the policy is written, the percentage is a guideline, not a threshold. Kingturtle (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how do we (the community) change the policy to tell bureaucrats that discounting large amounts of !votes is a dangerous thing to do. Marking as "invalid" rather than "no consensus" (ie. "not able to judge consensus") might be a more honest assessment than believing that you have to try and find consensus. Before judging consensus, you have to judge whether it is even possible to find the consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

a subjective decision by an individual bureaucrat: Please please let's stop calling it a "community derived consensus" then. - TwoOars 14:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo passed at 61%, leading to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be cause to narrow down and pinpoint some of the wording on Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. It currently states:

"It is the job of bureaucrats to determine consensus when closing a request for adminship. As RfA is not a straightforward majority vote, there is no precise "pass" or "fail" percentage, and the bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity. However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances."

Kingturtle (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So which opposes of the ^demon RfA were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity? Who decides which reasons are of questionable validity? Why do not 'crats act all this bold when the opposes are of "questionable validity" so often, say, like the opposes about name space distribution or frequency of RfAs? Almost any oppose reason can be argued away if one wants to. It's a given that 'crats can exercise their discretion in these things. Just don't make it look like the opposers didn't provide a convincing argument. The simple fact with the ^demon RfA closure is that the 'crat disagreed with the opposers and agreed with the supporters. It would just be nice to say it like it is rather than saying it is the 'crat's "interpretation of community opinion". That's insulting everyone's intelligence. - TwoOars 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For more clarification, User:WJBscribe made a closing statement on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3. Kingturtle (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, that statement is what I was alluding to, above. - TwoOars 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take part in the RfA. I've just looked at the closing statement and find it a model of judgement and lucidity. Tyrenius (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he made a lucid support argument; but qua RFA closure, it's essentially incoherent. We mustn't confuse a good support argument with a valid closing rationale; otherwise almost any RFA in the history of the project could be closed as successful. I've left Scribe a detailed post on his talk page here where the holes in his closing statement are detailed. He has not responded to me since Friday, but he appears to have not been very active. If our system were "people comment, crat takes it under advisement and does as he thinks best" this would be a valid close. But no. We operate by consensus, and he has breached the trust placed in him by promoting when there was decidedly no consensus to do so. --JayHenry (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While the suggestion on WJBscribe's talk page has superficial appeal (that a bureaucrat speedy close the RfA and promote a former admin who is not required to go through RfA), I think it is better to allow these RfAs to go through and consume however much community time they will consume. Voting against the candidate for wasting our time is perfectly fine too. Perhaps their requesting an RfA should be a signal that we should not re-promote them. But we have big time consuming discussions on deletions and lots of other stuff, so why not on former admins? NoSeptember 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes- it's an important question, so it's worth spending time on. I wish we'd spend time getting the right answer, but your mileage may vary. If there's one thing we can do to improve the project over time, it's finding ways to promote more competent admins. Friday (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of not using RfA for "reconfirmations"(read votes for desysoping). It is the the proper venue. Perhaps arbcom is a better place, or their own talk page if they really really want mob justice. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I requested desysopping the 11th due to me taking an indefinite wikibreak. Since I am for the most part back now, I am requesting the resysopping of my account. Thanks, Wizardman 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Welcome back. WjBscribe 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise from me—welcome back ;) AGK (contact) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think someone forgot to list HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk · contribs) on the "approved" brfa thing (so it's not flagged yet), but closed the thinggy approved: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/HBC_AIV_helperbot5. *shrug* just a quick heads up. Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. WjBscribe 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your input is probably needed here: [12] and the resulting change in confirmation standards here: [13]. Not the end of the world but I do think it's inappropriate to do this with several on-going RFB's. In any case there's a !vote occurring on the subject. RxS (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't participate in many RfAs, but I'm surprised at the way Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Epbr123 has been conducted, I wonder if this is the norm, and I wonder if any bureaucrat is watching. Epbr123 has apparently gained some very vocal and passionate opposers. Is it the norm for an entire, separate discussion section to be created above the declartions of support and oppose, for opposers to call attention to their complaints and essays on the talk page? The last time I observed an RfA this ugly was several years ago, and it was enough to convince most people I know (myself included) that my name would never appear at RfA. Is that a normal layout, or should that page be refactored? I already had to ask once for a very long essay by an opposer to be moved to the talk page. It's quite ugly, with the opposers attacking supporters for simply disagreeing with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No actually. This is the most acrimonious RFA I've ever seen for a long time, and it's very unusual in that consensus is very polarized at the moment: some who think he's learned and others who insist he's just been keeping his head down. bibliomaniac15 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But why is "Discussion" listed twice at the top? Is that the norm? Or was that done to draw attention to their complaints? I try to avoid RfA as much as possible (for these very reasons), so I really don't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it as a sign of very passionate and strong opinions regarding the candidate. Surely, the attacking one another was unacceptable, but none of it nullifies the objections or the supports. No one is being undermined here. Looking at the page now, it seems substantially less cluttered and confusing. So what's the problem? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a Discussion heading, followed by a Further discussion heading, which is redundant. Is that the norm? It reads as an attempt to draw attention to issues (admittedly, I don't frequent RfA much, so perhaps that is done often). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From my experience no, it's not exactly typical. I agree that it made the page significantly disjointed and hard to follow - however, I don't believe there is anything that could be done about it besides politely asking those involved in the discussion to tone it down. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to delete the second (redundant) heading, since there's no separate content in the first? Perhaps I'm slow, but I don't understand why it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the talk going on at the RfA under "discussion"? - If yes, then I'd opine that it is redundant to the discussion going on here. I don't necessarily think it should be expunged, but people should be directed here, as they already have been. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If I understand you correctly, I agree that there ought not to be talk pages on RfAs. My interpretation of the contents of that talk page would be quite the opposite of yours however. Opposers being attacked just because they disagreed with the supporters. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is linked to WP:WORD from fervent users. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what what you're talking about. Perhaps if I was a pre-pubescent admin I might call you on wp:agf or wp:civil. But as I'm not, I won't. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well I didn't mean your comment - I was actually referring to the noted squabbling that was ongoing during this RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a small backlog forming on Wikipedia:Changing username could somebody try and clear it? Cheers! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Patience. Usernames used to regularly take days to change. Andre (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it seems to all be done now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are backlogs that are, dare I say it?, more deserving of attention than changing username—the copyright backlogs, etc... Having said that, it would be nice if a 'crat could pop over to there: we've got some more outstanding requests. AGK (contact) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

boldly closed by me, withdrawn. Please check to make sure I crossed and dotted. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All looks good. Added to unsuccessful candidates, etc. Gets the DHMO-seal of approval. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I would have done in addition is to provide the diff for the candidate's withdrawal. Other than that, looks good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They withdrew by commenting in the discussion section; no real need to provide a diff in that case. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...yeah, so I totally missed that. *cough* Note to self: pull head out of ass before talking. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mkernatmkerndotcom#Mkernatmkerndotcom → Nocontributionsever. Related to OTRS ticket #2008030310015557. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 13:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unusually, five RfBs are scheduled to end over the next twenty-four hours. To minimize potential controversy, I respectfully suggest that instead of having individual bureaucrats race to close each one independently, there be an open discussion here at WP:BN among bureaucrats and community members about how to proceed. That way, a single standard can be applied to all of the nominations, and bureaucrats can be sure they are on the same page with each other and with the community's expectations. Tim Smith (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really needed? The Rambling Man is a clear pass, I don't think Riana's one needs a discussion, I think the consensus is clear on that irregardless of the percentage (personal opinion), the Wizardman one might need a second look, but I think there's no community consensus to promote, and the two other ones are clear. Maxim_(talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic, beg-forgiveness and knee-jerk reaction here, but did "irregardless" become a word when I wasn't paying attention? Was "irrespective" intended? Maybe I should add myself to the "Uptight editors" category? Just can't help myself! Franamax (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of RfBs has any bearing on how they're closed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Errr... Firstly, much as I like the concept, I do feel that the 'crats may well actually wish to do such mundane things as sleeping and therefore a 24 hour "consensus period" will be tricky. Secondly, I believe that the current rash of RfB's is due to a perception that we have fewer active bureuacrats than the community wishes, and therefore by defenition few will be around to debate outcome; thirdly, RfB's are determined by consensus of the community and enacted by a bureaucrat through a simple technical function. Further "bureaucrat only" debate disenfranchises the community from that process. Fourthly, none of the current RfB's seem so outside of community norms/expectations as to require anything but a simple button press or not as the case may be. Pedro :  Chat  23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There really is no correlation. Why can't the individual crats close them as has been the standard? Surely they treat each one as they should..a statistical count with a discussion and a search for consensus. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to what you are trying to achieve, each RfB is an individual discussion and needs to be treated as such. I don't think it would be helpful to make a blanket decision and apply it across them without taking into account the nuances of a particular RfB. I will say however that snap decisions are unlikely in this instance and that where outcomes are not clear, it is my intention that a discussion between bureaucrats to take place before a decision is made. I cannot foresee inconsistent outcomes occuring. WjBscribe 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The only one that needs any kind of discussion is possibly Riana's, since it is close to the borderline of 90%. The others are all clear passes/fails. Majorly (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One would assume that with 273 comments made at Riana's RfB discussion has probably been done.... Do we honestly need more? (with admitted bias here as I opposed and then supported)Pedro :  Chat  00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not on a deadline. If it takes an extra couple days to close some of them, it should be no big deal. Mr.Z-man 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

…and I hope to see you around in a couple of months or so -- Avi (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You withdraw your RfB, right? ;-) Just want to make sure before I close it for you. Maxim_(talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not withdraw. But I believe it should have been over 10 minutes ago. I specifically did not withdraw so I could get the widest spectrum of responses to get the best understanding of what I still would need to accomplish. -- Avi (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. Maxim_(talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RfBs are merciless. Consider participating more in RfAs this year, and try again once you think you're ready. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I'll be participating in many more, on a vocal basis this time as opposed to the silent abstain I had been using for the past year, and I hope I'll be ready in a matter of a couple of months, nota year :). Thanks again. -- Avi (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I closed this RfA per WP:SNOW. Can an administrator or bureaucrat make sure this was done correctly? Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks right. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for other bureaucrats to join me in discussing what the outcome of Riana's RfB should be. WjBscribe 02:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad I can finally relax. :D ~ Riana ⁂ 02:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hope the bureaucrats will note the nature of opposition is largely not on whether Riana would be competent and capable, but because she expressed support for Kelly Martin. I am unsure why assuming good faith would preclude a user from judging RFA closures, renaming users and tagging bots, and hope the bureaucrats participating in the above discussion give the opposition based on Riana's nominating Kelly Martin for RFA the appropriate weighting (ie, very little indeed). Neıl ☎ 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As the size of a community increases, the proportion of communication which is noise tends to increase. When many members do not know each other, things become less collegial. Example: with a small community, 2% of the votes might convey no information, i.e. be random; with a larger community the random votes might be 10%. Therefore, over time, to maintain the same standards of quality, we may need to lower voting thresholds slightly to compensate for the increased amount of noise. Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I count fully 17 of the opposes that cite "Kelly Martin" directly, and another several that cite nebulous "per above concerns" type things, which could very well be KM. Also, there were a couple that didn't even provide a reason. Out of the 39 opposes, there were perhaps 14-15 that were thoughtful and well-reasoned. This is just my take on the situation. Bellwether ^B_C 12:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Bellwethers assessment here, FWIW, he just got here sooner. :). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, at the "Crats-only" discussion, it seems that the above analysis (only 14-15 legitimately thoughtful opposes) isn't being considered by most of the crats. It's more a debate between those who think that 90% should be a hard and fast rule (though the community has made it clear they don't agree) and those who think that there should be some discretion about that percentage. Bellwether ^B_C 05:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am really uncomfortable with the notion that supports like:

• WP:200 Support or
• Support --FANCYSIGFELLA^{I heard u like mudkipz?} 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)~

Evidently counts as "legitimately thoughtful", but a "per X" oppose does not. Of course, in both cases it is unmistakable shorthand for "I agree that the points raised above by [whomever] are legitimate arguments with which I concur." Agree or disagree about Kelly Martin (and make no mistake, I supported Riana), members of the community, in good standing, but forth a coherent argument that this was a serious cause for concern, and others agreed. There's no such requirement that everyone rephrase the argument themselves. If someone were suggesting to discard supports on such grounds, I'm sure you'd be appalled. --JayHenry (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An oppose per X must carry the same weight as X's oppose. Per above has I think got to be taken to mean "as a result of the sum of the above concerns". WjBscribe 13:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Some opposes are based on "per above" - how can we specify which one they are referring to? Generally we think that they mean the one immediately above the oppose they've just added. Rather, the support section is much more easier to determine. If we have supports where just a WP:200 support or a "per nom" support is present, I generally believe that they mean that they agree with the nomination (in this case by Riana). A 200th support is just the same as any other support 1> n <239, they're not supporting because of the fact that it's 200 but because of it being a support and the fact they feel it worth adding it. Rudget (?) 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Traditionally, haven't supports without comment been taken to simply mean, "I trust this user to do x"? Opposes required more thoughtful reasoning, because you were saying you didn't trust them with x, and there should be some reason why you don't trust them. And, if that reason is spurious, then the oppose is discarded. As an oppose is 9x as powerful as a support, I think that's perfectly reasonable. And as such, I think !votes of "Oppose, Kelly Martin..." should be tossed. I don't have much use for Kelly or her brand of editing/politicking, but that has nothing to do with the fitness of this candidate for the b'crat buttons. Bellwether ^B_C 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Rudget (?) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Result

For those not already aware, I have closed Riana's RfB as unsuccessful. WjBscribe 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I know it wasn't you, Will, but this is as angry as I've ever been at a decision made by one of the "governing bodies" in place as Wikipedia. That four 'crats refused to look past the end of their noses to see that the community has roundly rejected 90%, is incredibly disappointed, and could have a chilling effect on those of us who might have been interested in becoming more involved in the RfA/B process. Bellwether ^B_C 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There must not be a chilling effect, that would be detrimental to everyone. I encourage those who have participated in these discussions now to focus on making sure that the community's wishes as to how RfBs should be closed become unambiguous. WjBscribe 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • They weren't "ambiguous", Will, except to four determined 'crats. As for the "chilling effect" caused, I think even Riana has been chased off from ever trying again, and I can't say I blame her. When you're supported by an overwhelming majority of the community, when half the opposes are some version of "I really don't like Kelly Martin", and these opposes fail your overwhelmingly supported nomination because four 'crats won't weigh the community's rejection of their preferred 90% standard, well I'd be discouraged too. And I'd probably swear off ever trying again. Bellwether ^B_C 14:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree. That was a very poor decision not to promote Riana given the apparent strength of feeling about the 90% barrier. The closing might just as well have been done by a bot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • What Bellwether said. Half of the opposes had nothing to do with Riana at all. Will ^(talk) 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • This is one reason why we should reconfirm bureaucrats. Majorly (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's not much we can do now. I do think that most of the opposes related to Kelly Martin shouldn't have been considered just because they had nothing to do with trusting Riana to perform 'crat duties; many said "she nominated a troll/someone I don't like for RfA, therefore she cannot be trusted to promote." If these opposes had been weighed less in the final decision, I have a sense that consensus would have been found. Just my 2¢. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Considering that we have an encyclopedia to build, I'm just going to leave a simple comment here: people should use more common sense when it comes to RfB. That applies both to voters and the closers. Sometimes, everyone gets too caught up in the drama to think clearly. — Deckiller 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What I honestly do not understand

... and setting aside my painfully obvious bias... is why this crat chat was closed so quickly. Gracenotes lasted 7 days. Was there some particular urgency in my case which I missed? And you needn't have worried about causing me grief. I've got plenty of RL shit to keep me preoccupied. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, we really should've waited for The Rambling Man to weigh his opinion in. Will ^(talk) 15:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The bureaucrat chat for Gracenotes' RfA was generally regarded as not being a success, and the primary reason given was that it lasted too long. I agree with WJBscribe below that it seemed unlikely that running the chat for longer would have resulted in agreement as to whether consensus had been reached. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there seemed to be agreement that it should be closed, I was the only one keeping the discussion going and no one showed any sign of changing their mind. My suggestion that we wait until the community determined what RfB promotion standards should be was soundly rejected by the others. The Rambling Man participated in the discussion - he would have made a controversial advocate for promotion (and even then we would still have had a deadlock) and if he did not support promotion it would have made no difference. In other words, views seemed to be entrenched and there was in my estimation no prospect of anything changing. WjBscribe 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Others = 4 out of a purportedly currently active 12. I don't call that consensus, but hey, who am I to judge consensus. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I do not trust the bureaucrats any more. Cumulating evidence like promoting Danny "because it's Danny", while not promoting GN or Riana leave a sour taste in my mouth. Not well done. Dorftrottel (talk) 16:37, March 8, 2008
  • That was not the whole reason. A enough of the opposes were about promoting Essjay to a 'crat, which does not effect how he does as an admin. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Some logic is in order There are really only two scenarios here:

Scenario one: Riana self noms for cratship. Receives 85.7% support. Concurrently, a separate (but obviously influenced) talkpage post opens to determine RFB consensus and appears to have arrived at a <90% requirement + use of discretion. Crats ignore/choose to disregard/whatever, "changing consensus" and close based on "old, never before articulated consensus". Riana's RfB fails. 237 supporters and one nom are disappointed. 39 people, 45% of which just really really don't like KM, are satisfied (Even though at least one of the primary and non-KM opposer, User:Miranda has stated prior to closing that she is switching to support. (sorry, can't find the link, but it exists).

Result of scenario one (the one that has happened)? Drama. Riana stays an admin, gets lots of talkpage messages, the outcome of the RfB angers a lot of good faith supporters (see above) and waits for the consensus to be approved at 85% for RfB, and reruns. Probably within a few weeks. Result?=Drama, and then, the inevitable cratship, and probably above 90% if my hunch is correct because of the attention of this saga.

Scenario two: Crats reverse this decision based on weight of arguments in the RfB and changing consensus criteria for cratship. Riana becomes bureaucrat now based on consensus and discretion of crats to ignore the non-existent and outdated 90% rule.

Result of Scenario two? In other words, what is avoided in this? This link, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana 2, will always be red, drama is reduced, and the inevitable cratship is finalized and confirmed. We all move on. The only opposition that holds any weight, IMHO, is the perceived "unfairness" to previous noms who withdrew their RfBs, specifically Ryan. So, how 'bout, instead of "punishing" Riana for Ryan withdrawing on old consensus ideas, we simply relist (with his endorsement of course) his RfB?. We could very easily just start a second one.

I !vote for Scenario 2. Riana is a crat now, we have less of the inevitable drama, and we reopen/relist/restart Ryan's RfB for fairness (if he wishes). Any seconds? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of logic we need bring back to Wikipedia. — Deckiller 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Only that people agreed that there should be no change in bureaucrat promotion standards in the middle of the RFBs that were currently underway. There were few, if any, objections to applying the 90% "rule" to this batch of RFBs.Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't so much logic as it is a suggestion designed to appeal only to people who already agree with you. It makes some implicit assumptions that will only appear valid to those on the support side. Friday (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What are those implicit assumptions, Friday? I'm open to modification. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

As it's clear that I'm not the only person who has a problem with this decision, I'd like to make a formal request for the bureaucrats (specifically WjBScribe) to reconsider their decision here. I personally like to know why a margin of 198 supports does not constitute ample support by the community. Incidentally, such a margin is the 5th largest margin ever seen in an RFB/RFA, beaten only by the RFAs of Newyorkbrad, Daniel.Bryant, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, and Phaedriel. It's also the 6th most supported in history, bested only by the RFAs of the above users, as well as Danny's RFA. If a 85% support isn't community consensus, then I don't know what is. Sean William @ 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what decision you want me to reconsider. I believe Riana should have been promoted. But, having asked for the input of other bureaucrats I do not think I can disregard it. Cecropia's latest contribution means that there are 5 bureaucrats opposing promotion to 3 that support it. It would I think be unpardonably arrogant of me to presume that I (incidentally the least experienced crat) am correct and that they are wrong and to disregard their opinions. Having asked for them, I think I am bound by them. If the community feels that we have gotten this one wrong, then I can only encourage everyone to give the clearest possible signal as to how you would like bureaucrats to close RfBs in future. WjBscribe 17:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the point of having more B-crats to have more reasonable and active discussions in controversial closings? Clearly, this entire situation shows that we need more 'crats; however, if people are going to oppose RfBs based solely on their mild dislike for an RfA nomination, then how do we stop the vicious cycle? — Deckiller 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, given the difficulty this small-ish group of bureaucrats had making this decision, how would a larger group have an easier time making a similar decision? I think this is one of the dangers I see in a potentially larger group of bureaucrats. RxS (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana aside, I agree with RxS I think, in that I don't see having a higher standard for promotion of bureaucrats to be a bad thing. Frankly, I think it's the only thing that's protected us, as a community, from having more anti-consensus closures. Stewards go at 80%, but they lose the tools after a year if they're doing a crummy job. Bureaucrats are appointed until their death or the end of the Wiki -- whichever comes first. Again, if we have a pool of bureaucrats who are 1) almost universally trusted at the time of their promotion 2) able to handle their workload then the concern must be 3) the quality of the decisions they make. And there's no doubt been a couple of real stinkers. But why would we think their decision making is going to improve by promoting less trusted users to the role? --JayHenry (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a question one might ask (I'm not sure what the answer is) is whether the higher threshold leads to better candidates passing? Are those with less opposition necessarily going to do a better job. The community was in theory want those used to making difficult calls to be bureaucrats. There is a risk that setting the bar too high actually makes it impossible for those people to pass - because people will oppose the makers of decisions they disagree one, not just illegitimate ones. Hard to judge empirically so I guess it comes down to instinct. Do people think the very high RfB bar is keeping the standard of candidates high, or just ruling other equally good or superior candidates? WjBscribe 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A valid question. But you passed, and you didn't shy away from difficult situations. I just want to see more candidates like you, rather than lowering our standards. The fact is that if we lower our standards, and I'm not singling anyone out (certainly not Riana!) but more hat collectors will start to get through and we won't be well served by that. --JayHenry (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the high standards necessarily guarantee better candidates...but it will preserve a smaller, hopefully more cohesive group. A larger group will be a more contentious, less cohesive group. Higher standards may also mean that the bureaucrats who are promoted have a larger degree of community support. RxS (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Higher standards do not guarantee that a candidate is any more qualified for the job. The people best suited for bureaucratship have offended someone at one point or another during their administrative career, and these people oppose and sink the person's RFB. Our standards at the moment dictate that almost no opposition must exist for somebody to be promoted, which works in theory, but in practice only allows people with grudges and strong opinions to get an unusually heavy say in the matter. Sean William @ 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly may not, but no one has said how a larger group will be able to make contentious decisions easier than a smaller group, given the difficulty they had with this one. And no one has said what advantage there is to be had by electing a larger group. I don't mean a smallish increase, I'm mainly concerned about a larger increase in bureaucrat numbers. RxS (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed

Set some random percentage, abolish 'crats, and simply design a bot to promote >X%. Lessens the drama, and removes any discretion, which the four 'crats (and now Cecropia) seem to lack. If this candidacy didn't fall within the "discretionary promote", none will. And when viewed against the "but he's DANNY" promotion, well, this is just farcical. Bellwether ^B_C 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. One decision with which you disagree doesn't mean they all lack any judgment whatsoever. --JayHenry (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• My point was that the whole system is broken, if it failed in this case. If Riana wasn't a discretionary promote, then just have a bot do the damn job. Bellwether ^B_C 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the botting. While I agree Bellwether, that Riana's Rfb was closed incorrectly, I have explicitly not lost trust in the discretionary abilities and good judgment of the crats as a group. One mistake (and I use "mistake" loosely as some feel the Riana RfB was closed correctly) does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The system, as it sits, works. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• What would be the real difference, Keep? >X% would still be promoted; <X% still would not be. Again, what's the real difference? Bellwether ^B_C 17:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• This would be the difference. The bureaucrats didn't decide based on the percentage, they decided after a lengthy discussion. --Conti|✉ 18:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Honestly? I think a bot close would be too easy to game if you took out the human capability to use discretion. I feel that it would lead to off-wiki canvassing to bloat the supports, or bloat the opposes. It really can't be just numbers. I feel that the crats use good discretion, and simply got the Riana RfB wrong (see the secton directly above this). I would much rather have humans closing RfAs, and RfBs for that matter, because humans can make mistakes and becuase humans can reverse there actions if deemed necessary or appropriate by the community. Changing RfBs to bot closes (or RfAs for that matter) would be a step backwards. Your proposal, in that sense, feels like an overreaction to a controversial (and in my opinion, incorrect), close. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, I understand and respect that you're frustrated but this is a proposal born of frustration, and I think even you recognize it would not be a good way to move forward. --JayHenry (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I'd just like someone to explain to me exactly how "Oppose ... Kelly Martin" !votes didn't just get summarily tossed in the WikiTrashBin, which would have made this an easy pass. Especially given the nonsense that was the Danny RfB. Bellwether ^B_C 18:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets discuss that. There a few things I would point out. Adminship discussions are carried out against a backdrop that "adminship is no big deal", bureaucratship it would seem is a big deal. When determining the success of RfAs were are asked to determine if a consensus for promotion exists - when closing RfBs its seems we are asked to look for something more, some kind of supermajority. In other words, RfB is a much more vote like construct because it is not simply consensus being looked at. Also, I think to simply say Riana was opposed because she nominated someone unpopular is a disservice to the opposers. Kelly Martin lost her adminship controversially and I have have heard her say herself that she has been trolling the wiki ever since. She writes some fairly poisonous material on her blog. The point as I understood it was not that it was a problem Riana supported Kelly, but that she thought she should or would have have passed RfA. That resulted in some people concluding that Riana was out of touch with the community, or lacked sound judgment because the drama-fest that RfA turned into could have been foreseen from the outset. As a crat, it was not for me to judge whether I agree with that logic or whether such opposition is fair, but whether it was valid. In my view it is a valid, albeit very subjective reason to oppose someone's RfB. Given that the question seems to be how much community trust the candidate enjoys, the lack of trust demonstrated by those people seemed relevant. WjBscribe 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Will, I have to call foul there. Are you now saying that the "...Kelly Martin" votes weren't specious?!? If so, I've lost a lot of respect for your judgment. How exactly does nominating someone who many others don't like, or who turns out to have been simply trolling when she sought adminship again disqualify Riana in this case? I hate to bring up the infamous Archtransit case, but we've all been fooled before, havent' we? Should you be DQ-ed, simply because you nom-ed one of the worst non-Essjay frauds we've seen in the project's history, and defended him until it became overwhelmingly obvious what he was? Obviously, as I defended you when you were attacked in that case, my answer would be no. Neither do I think opposes citing Riana's nom of KM are any more worthy of discussion. It's completely unfair, and totally unwise for the 'crats to not have simply discarded those !votes as specious. Bellwether ^B_C 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bellwether, I decided to stayed out of this RfB for a variety of reasons but I've been following the discussions on the various pages and have to call you out on the comment about Will's nomination of Archtransit. The Archtransit nomination was entirely different to the nomination of Kelly Martin. Archtransit had snuck by without drawing any real concerns from any other editors. Read his RFA Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Archtransit - it passed with a final tally of 53/0/0. No one raised real concerns about him and if anyone suspected he was a sock of a banned user, they certainly didn't speak up. Kelly Martin's RfA, on the other hand, was either a serious troll from the start or profoundly misguided. Kelly Martin gave up her various access rights under controversial circumstances. In the beginning she was an excellent admin who was highly regarded but by the time she resigned she was extremely controversial, constantly at the center of really disruptive controversies and disputes. Now, I'm really big on redemption and forgiveness but people need to seek it and show some signs that *this* time things will be different. Anyone who looked at Kelly Martin who post resignation had made few edits to Wikipedia outside trolling RfAs with the demand that candidates should be endorsed by a Wikiproject and writing at times vicious pieces on her blog and seriously thought she should be and could be resysopped at that time and under those circumstances was either profoundly out-of-touch with the community or were simply participating in a major trolling of the community. Riana's a very clever and observant person, I'm sure she knew what the outcome of the nomination would be. On the other hand, Will had absolutely no way of knowing that Archtransit would end up being desysopped as a sock of a banned user. These are entirely different situations and I don't think it's fair to be comparing them. As for whether Kelly Martin's RfA is a specious oppose reason or not, I think for the people who opposed regarding that, they see it as a question of judgment which seems an entirely valid reason to me. I have seen plenty of RfAs and RfBs opposed before when someone felt a candidate had done something that made them question the candidate's judgment and yet no one has ever suggested they were specious oppose rationales and lobbied for them to be discounted. I have also seen plenty of opposes based on one diff or one issue so the idea that the Kelly Martin votes ought to be discounted because it only happened once doesn't hold much weight for me either. I'm all for reforming both RfA and RfB but I don't think it should be done midstream, ie I don't think we should be trying to move the goalposts for a particular RfA/RfB when there's a result people don't like. And I don't think reform should be done reactively in highly emotionally charged circumstances. Sarah 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• My point about the AT situation was more to do with his defense of him right up to the bitter end, when it just became so blatantly obvious what AT was doing. Even still, the main point I was making is that just as that shouldn't negate all the good Will has done here, neither should nomming KM negate all that Riana has done here. The KM opposes were specious, period. They had nothing to do with whether Riana could accurately judge consensus, nor anything really to do with Riana at all. It was more about "We hate Kelly, she doesn't, the end." In other words, the definition of specious. Bellwether ^B_C 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, as a supporter of that RFB I didn't think that nomination demonstrated bad enough judgment to oppose, but I accept the fact that people can disagree about it. I wish you would ease up a bit and stop assuming you know why people voted the way they did. You think the opposes were specious, others do not. But understand that you may not have a monopoly on the "Truth". It might not be a bad idea to move on. RxS (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support for now, until we replace RFB. The outcome would be the same, and it frees up bureaucrats to do something more useful. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is my point exactly. If they're going to fail Riana's RfB (the most widely-supported ever, I believe), simply because "<90%", then just have a bot do it. Let them change usernames and whatever else, but why the heck do we need them if Riana's RfB doesn't fall in the "discretionary promote" zone? Bellwether ^B_C 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    Don't ask the choir. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) as in "preaching to the choir". There's little point, they already know/agree. :-)

Strong Oppose - Per Riana's last RFB. It's vitally important to maintain discussion. Allowing a bot to promote/deny based solely on numbers undermines the very process of consensus and narrow margins. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's my strong impression that Riana's last RFB demonstrates quite the opposite of what you appear to believe. A bot could have made that decision with a lot less fuss. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. That situation required some finesse. There wouldn't have been such a fussy or layered discussion if it didn't. A bot is simply mechanical and for expedience purposes. However, sometimes when expedience sacrifices logic and reason, it's just not worth it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. The situation did indeed require some finesse, which was not, IMO, demonstrated. Hence a bot could have done the job equally well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. If the humans aren't going to show any more "finesse" and creative thinking than "It's <90%, so it fails", then a bot could do the job just as well, without all the drama of faux "discussion", leading across a Bridge to Nowhere. We could reach the same nowhere without the drama of 'crats who refuse to go by anything but straight numbers. Bellwether ^B_C 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact still remains that this is an isolated example where we differ in opinion. Let's say for a moment that you're right. However, what about the next time, and the time after that? More cases like the one mentioned are certainly going to crop up again. They should should be guided by discussion, not an automated bot. I guess my point is that the crats should never just go by the numbers, unless it's cut and dry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the fact is five 'crats chose to behave like bots--and have indicated they will do so in the future--so why not simply replace their bot-like "contributions" with an actual bot? Bellwether ^B_C 12:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Crat reconfirmation/recall

First, I plan to ask all future RfB candidates if they will make their status as bureaucrats subject to recall voluntarily (CAT:BOR), and I would ask all current bureaucrats to note whether they will do this also.

Second, I think it is clear that there may be some bureaucrats whose view on their role is out of touch with the community. Whether others agree with me or not, there seems to be some support for a mandatory reconfirmation/voluntary recall process for bureaucrats. As WjB points out above, while adminship is no big deal, cratship is - and there should be a method to prevent 'cratship from being a lifetime appointment in the absence of gross misconduct. Thoughts? Avruch ^T 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed something similar on WT:RFA Majorly (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quick Majorly - I just got done alerting people to this discussion here. Might get more crat's to respond here though. Either way. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of reconfirmations as their either backslapping lovefests or magnets for every offended user who disagrees with that crat, policy, the projects goals, etc. I joked about BOR earlier, but think it could work. I say could because I would ask the crats come up with a standard that all crats would abide. Something far higher than that of AOR's standard optional model should be required (Like maybe 10 admins). MBisanz ^talk 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the high standards and the trust the community places in a Bureaucrat I'd have to agree with Majorly on the proposal (and the one above of course). While it may sap the number of crats, the inactive ones need to be removed anyway and the untrustworthy/illegitimate ones need a manner in which they are evaluated post-promotion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reflexively that makes sense, but remember that they required far, far higher support in order to become 'crats to begin with - the voters weighed their supports more closely, and the standard for passing was higher. In that sense, a relatively small number of people (akin to the number who could have derailed the initial RfB?) should be able to initiate a 'crat recall. Maybe 3 admins, instead of 10. Avruch ^T 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it unreasonable to suggest that only administrators participate in the recall process and not the "average" editor? I understand that it would be voluntary and ultimately decided by the crat (much like admin recall), but perhaps one immutable restriction is understandable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Making no comment on this particular proposal, but it's time a lot of people re-read the "no big deal" comment. Firstly, Wikipedia was a lot younger then, and secondly my interpretation (which if you review the words is the only logical interpretation) is that the perceived "status" of being and admin [or bureaucrat] is not a big deal (in Jimbo's opinion). Jimbo makes no mention at all as to whether the tools themselves are "a big deal". Review line one of the quote. It's far past time we rid ourselves of this ongoing and frequently quoted out of context misconception. Pedro :  Chat  19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't have a status IMO. I'll tell them off if they mess up just as much as anyone else. ;-)

Most admin tools actually no longer require as much trust as they used to, since many of them have been discontinued (like SQL queries), nerfed (eg. view deleted edits, now covered by an extra layer of wp:office), or been provided with a safety-net (eg. images can now be undeleted).

Admin requirements have inflated and warped to the point where they are utterly useless to actually determine if someone is suited to be an admin. It's so bad that whether someone is suited to be an admin might better be decided by (suitably biased) random chance. This could be done by a bot, and would save valuable community time. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the admin requirements are entirely too lofty anyway considering their duties. Unfortunately, there's nothing really that can be done about it considering that editor's individual pet peeves come into play as well, and far too often do I see pile opposes due to trivial single incident clashes with the candidate. It almost becomes vindicative. But I don't want to see as though I'm not assuming good faith. Just an observation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you make a great point Pedro. However, it's not an entirely convincing argument, if only for the fact that most users who make it simply quote Jimbo Wales. Yes, it may not be a big deal in a manner of speaking, but the community views these positions differently. Not to mention that there is a certainly high level of managerial responsibility that is expected of bureaucrats. Misconduct of any of these users can affect the system gravely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree Wisdom that the community make it a big deal at times. My (unblued) point is the continual reference to "No Big Deal" across this project is generally as inaccurate as references to WP:POINT when someone's just making a point, or WP:BITE when established editors are speaking to each other. If editors want to quote precedent and guidelines that's great, but I fancy that on WP:DEAL there is an issue that editors now associate it with "admin tools are no big deal" when the quote says nothing of the kind. It's irrelevant in a sense to this thread, although I noted it has again been cited incorrectly in the overall discussion here, and hence my comment. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Pedro, "elevation" to the position is far too often seen as glorification, when in reality there is nothing special about it. Now, the actual buttons and tools, well they are a big deal and must not be abused. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The buttons are much less of a big deal than they used to be. Some have been removed, others nerfed, yet others now have a safety net. We could easily lower our standards considerably with no real consequence. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that Kim. My comment here is simple. The No Big Deal comment is applicable to an editor having admin rights - i.e. having admin rights is no big deal. No more, no less. The application of admin rights may, or may not, be a big deal, but the original quote never discussed that. So let's not use it as a frame of reference when discussing the tools and their application. It is misleading at best, and perpetuates a mis-interpretation. Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We could change our requirements to align with ... hmm, new wiki in 2002, still a lot of dangerous admin actions in 2003 (but folks have had a year to work out the kinks ...)

OK, so we could change our requirements to be in-line-with, but lower-than those in 2003. That would still not be realistic (2003 was approx. the peak year wrt actual admin responsibility), but it'd be a start. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if you're adressing my comments here Km, but assuming you are, you will note that I'm not commenting on the thread itself except to note that referencing WP:DEAL is becoming increasingly inaccurate. Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On rereading, yes, I see. A lot of people reference texts that they only poorly understand :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)