Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

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

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

When an account is renamed, the old account name is freed up. That means it is technically possible for anyone, including you, to register it again and use it. It will, however, look and behave exactly as a new account with no link to the old account. In some cases the renaming Bureaucrat will have recreated and blocked the old account to stop this happening. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
For example, in May 2013 I was renamed from User:Salvidrim to User:Salvidrim!. I have then re-registered the former name and keep it in a closet with my other doppelgangers. It is unused, but there would be no problem if I was to use it as a legitimate alternate account since the disclosure is self-evident; in fact, I may just do so if/when editing from a public computer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I used to be User:Pharmboy until 2008 when I changed to my real name, a few years later I just logged back into it with my old password (I think now you have to reregister), so I use Pharmboy (and User:Farmer Brown) as alt account on my phone, travel, etc. I do redirect those talk pages to my own, and put a note on all user pages saying they belong to me, so no one can say I'm socking, as the names are not similar or obviously connected. I even have "(alt of Dennis Brown)" in my sig for Farmer Brown. Dennis 2¢ 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
No concerns with this plan. –xenotalk 14:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Salvidrim! When processing WP:PERM requests I've always suggested to people wanting to created second account to create them from their main one, so as to have a solid log entry; obviously you can't do that after the fact, so otherwise establishing positive confirmation between them by an edit log is second recommendation (e.g. have you main account create the redirect from the new account). Having the alternate accounts is fine, the point is to make it clear to anyone that the editor behind them is the same. There are also multiple templates etc you can use after the redirect for example on one of my alt accounts — xaosflux Talk 14:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What a sight to behold! I am humbled by the insight amassed before me. This information is beyond helpful, it is in all honesty, therapeutic. My wiki-soul was torn by what felt, in small measure, like I assume it feels to abandon a "first-love", or to be faced with choosing a "good son". I was not "under a cloud", or seeking nefarious gain; just wanting to edit using my real name. But my conscious hasn't known wiki-peace since passing the point of no return, and I did not anticipate any-such-thing when weighing the pros and cons. I don't believe I'm the only one who ever crossed the name-change bridge only to learn that the grass was not greener at all. I am inclined to believe that anyone contemplating a name change would be glad to know of this option, and hope this very thread goes on to help as many more people as possible – just as it is helpful to me. I appreciate in advance any comments that may yet be shared, and can not give proper thanks to those who already commented. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 ACE Electoral Commission

Hi all,

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


Inactivity of User:Anonymous Dissident

Resolved

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

Well, but the proper notices have to be left, and as AD is a crat too, those rights have to be removed by a (non-enwiki) steward. --Rschen7754 05:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
And it isn't even a full year yet ... at time of writing, that won't happen for another couple of hours. Let MadmanBot handle it.Graham87 08:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I've notified AD of this discussion on his talk page. Graham87 08:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I know Anonymous Dissident off-wiki and will contact him accordingly; no rush to desysop or de-bureaucrat is required. Acalamari 09:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
What's the rush? He'll be included in the normal run that would get desysopped at the beginning of December, including the notices required by policy. Courcelles 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't intend to give the appearance of rushing. I just noticed that he had been inactive for about a year, and I was going to go offline shortly, so I thought I'd just post here while I was at it. --Biblioworm 16:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to worry about stuff like that, it's what we have bots for. Dennis - 2¢ 16:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Inactive admins for November 2014

Resolved

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:


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

 Done Yes, thank you to all of them for their service and thank you to you, Graham87, for your work in making these reports and updating the relevant pages. Acalamari 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Acalamari! I've finally gotten to update them. Graham87 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Forced rename

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

Also (this), (this), and (this one) as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not really a consequence of unification, though: names like that should always be oversighted, which is a better tool for the job than a forced rename. 28bytes (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The accounts have now been oversighted. PhilKnight (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin, who have blocked himself

Resolved
 – No action to be taken without a valid request. –xenotalk 18:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • We don't make it up as we go along. There is an Arb case pending on this. I don't think the Crats are going to take it upon themselves to desysop someone where they have no authority to do so. They can't (and won't) desysop someone just because it seems logical, policy is very strict on this. Dennis - 2¢ 16:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Dennis is correct: we would need a request from either ArbCom or Toddst1 himself. 28bytes (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the above. We can't do anything at the moment. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This will be dealt with automatically in due course according to the motion the Arbitration Committee adopted. However, in fairness to Jim Cartar, he may well not have been aware that the Committee already addressed the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to Vanish

Resolved
 – Actioned. –xenotalk 22:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

ARB

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

I wouldn't trust any 'crat who opted in, actually. The bureaucrats are well aware that they haven't been appointed for this role. They weren't questioned on this topic during their RfBs (if they were even appointed after the modern version of the RfB process existed). Bureaucrats have never had any sort of user-conduct-dispute resolution role—certainly nothing with this type of scope and impact, where they would be asked to usurp the role of the ArbCom. (A body which, incidentally, was elected by the community, to fulfill exactly the proposed purpose, whose members were subject to scrutiny on precisely this responsibility, and who must be re-elected regularly if they wish to continue to exercise this type of authority.)
In the context of adminship, the community relies on 'crats to be "moist robots". We expect and demand decisions on straight vote counts, and give them the authority to halt or suspend the process only when it goes seriously and conspicuously off the rails: SNOW closures, egregious abuses by participants, and so forth. Bureaucrats are generally trusted and considered uncontroversial because they take a hands-off approach, and because when faced with a difficult decision they don't have to make a call. They can punt, and say that a close-to-passing candidate should come back in three months, and the community is fine with that—a strategy that likely wouldn't sit well in a request for desysopping process.
While WP:CDARFC is now four years past, many of the comments I made about that failed proposal are applicable today. Each new generation of process wonks seems to reinvent the same square wheel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You raise some very good points, which coincidently undercut some of my recent comments. Learning isn't so bad. We do have a need for someone to come in an make the call in some of these situations, but I see your point that having Crats do is problematic. Now creating SuperAdmin, maybe that's the answer ;) Dennis - 2¢ 16:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but I don't think the reverse judgement is that hard. If a request for de-sysop is nominally at 70% then I doubt if the community would have much concern if some votes were discounted as meatpuppetry, canvassing or what-not and took the majority from 65% to 70% or vice versa. Anyone who is anywhere near the range to de-sysop in a straight consensus should be asking themselves serious questions, and if they weren't the type to hand their bit in under these circumstances, they would likely fare worse in the first place. I think a close failure to de-sysop would be a very clear message "come back with more convincing evidence and it will happen (becasue you will get the !votes)" and that would either seal the fate of a merely "quite bad" admin, or cause them to pull their socks up. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC).
I agree with Rich. The bureaucrat's job is a little more than moist robotics, @TenOfAllTrades. After checking for a rule of thumb 2/3-3/4 support level -- which is not a strict vote count, because invalid opinions are discounted, circumstances may be taken into account, vis-a-vis canvassing, etc., as Rich says -- the bureaucrat needs to actually do a Wiki policy, IAR gut check on the action. Some have taken this as an opportunity to convene a "crat chat," others have occasionally deviated from the community's expectation in some way, with mixed results. What it comes down to is executing the promotion is sometimes controversial and sometimes not, and the bureaucrat is the buck-stops-here person for making sure all the ducks are in a row. It's certainly no worse than closing an AFD or determining there to be consensus for a community ban, in fact quite a bit easier than those. The same seems to apply for a deadminship RFC. Andrevan@ 11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC took place nearly five years ago. It was a monumental work, and one of the best prepared RfC I have ever seen, and (technically) it failed on only a narrow margin. Consensus can change. Many things and situations on Wikipedia can and do change. Active participants in meta discussions are a transient pool of people, and those who do stick around can also change their opinions.
There is no need for anyone to be cautious about participating in the Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board, it's only a call for opinion on just one possible facet of CDA and whatever its result may be it will only be used as background to formulating and proposing a solution to something which (at least in my IMO) has become significantly more acute for several reasons that perhaps were not quite so evident back in 2010. That said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Five Problems with a Single Solution (for some reason tagged as defunct) is more pertinent today than it ever was (at least most parts of it). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

NA1000's promotion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's no need to continue the discussion here. Andrevan has apologized and stated it's not a mistake he will repeat. Other 'crats have weighed in on the topic and the decision was not changed. There is no need to further discuss things in this venue. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
 – With consent of Andrevan, I've assumed the promotion and re-closed the RFA as successful, with rationale [1]. Moreover, Andrevan apologized below indicating they have recognized their mistake and won't make it again [2]. –xenotalk 01:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reading the rationale for promoting a candidate with under 75%, given that there were no frivolous opposes. Is there a place to read such a thing, or do Crat's have a private area where such decisions are made? Or is it just one Crat that decides to promote after such a controversial discussion? LHMask me a question 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

From WP:MOP: "This determination is not based exclusively on the percentage of support, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most requests above ~80% approval pass and most below ~70% fail." 74 is squarely in the discretionary range. Andrevan@ 21:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So you believe it was appropriate for you, who voted in support of the candidate with a snarky personal attack to be the discretionary judge? Dave Dial (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no doubt this was an innocent oversight by Andrevan—I suspect he just forgot he supported—but in the circumstances it should be re-closed by another crat (or crats). The usual and proper practice is, of course, for a participant in an RfA not to close the RfA, especially when its close. Certainly in my recent close one, Wizardman explicitly recused himself (he supported me). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow. I hadn't noticed that. Amazingly poor judgment, and the decision should be immediately rescinded, and put to a discussion of uninvolved Crats. LHMask me a question 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, this was an uncontroversial close with plenty of support; 74% with 108 supporting is hard to come by in today's RFA. That it passed doesn't have anything to do with my support, (nor do I see how that's a personal attack), and it would have passed regardless -- there was no need to weigh here. My comment refers to TParis' oppose which is pretty unusual. But again, it's a moot point. A recusal is an option, but not a requirement in uncontroversial cases. Andrevan@ 22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it is a requirement. It goes to the heart of WP:INVOLVED. This is not wise at all. Among other things, refusing to rescind the close would forever taint NA1000's administrator status. And I say that having supported the RfA. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it reflects in any way on NA1000's admin status. I am not INVOLVED, I knew nothing about the user before the RFA, and my support comment reflects that in invoking NBD and AGF. Andrevan@ 22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit shocked to see that a crat closed a close RFA they voted in. It would be different if this was 100%, but this was definitely a controversial close, as it fell within the discretionary range. --Rschen7754 22:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
A 'crat chat might not be strictly necessary, but a closure by another uninolved bureaucrat might be justified. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Discretion is just that - discretionary. Not controversial necessarily. 74% is not close, that's a pass assuming no irregularities or serious concerns. So I'm standing by the close here. Andrevan@ 22:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Andrevan, it is generally a bad idea to make discretionary calls as a bureaucrat when you cannot be seen as impartial, as in this case. --Rschen7754 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Numbers no do not constitute controversy - it has to do with the content and strength of the discussion. I am impartial, and in this case it was not a bad idea, but an uncontroversial close. Process for process' sake is an empty and worthless thing, that's why we have policies that say to do what works, the right thing, and the logical thing. In this case my support comment was neither based on some interaction with the candidate, nor did it matter in the final tally. Andrevan@ 22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
In no way could you possibly be considered "impartial." You're not close to impartial. LHMask me a question 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you say it was using "discretion", then can you explain your use of discretion beyond claiming that you used it? --Rschen7754 22:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with the others that a different crat needed to close the RfA (I didn't vote, btw, fwiw). Just the vote, no matter what the tally is, should be enough to prevent the crat from closing it, but when the percentage is 74%, just saying it's uncontroversial is nothing more than an opinion of the involved crat.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rschen, here's some insight into how the process works. I reviewed the entire discussion. I determined that there was a minority roughly the size of one (1/4 or so) which would not prevent promotion on the face of it, and did not discount any comments as invalid. The issues raised by the opposition did not seem to pose an imminent threat to policy or stability that would require extra investigation or caution, and there were no issues raised late in the RFA that would have had a significant impact if they had been allowed to be discussed further. I could ascertain no irregularities with canvassing, sock or meat puppetry, etc. After that I went with my best judgment. I also noticed my support comment, which I did not feel was pertinent as one vote didn't affect the total, and I hadn't reviewed the user extensively at that time - I merely supported to bring up AGF and NBD in the face of the first oppose which struck me as based on a personal issue with this user ("I told him to stay away from me and he didn't" paraphrasing..) This is how the system works, this is not a controversial or close call at all, and I would urge those who think it was to read up on RFAs past, consensus, our policies and guidelines, and how they evolved. The point of the discretionary range is that when I close an RFA, "discretion" takes over, a word that means "the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation." So in saying that this was not close or controversial, I am exercising the standard discretion. Andrevan@ 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You showed a lack of judgement. Justifying and persistently defending your poor judgement is a further example of poor judgement. my advice: stop digging. Leaky Caldron 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a very close call. It was very controversial. And the fact that you can't see that speaks very poorly for your judgment and continued 'cratship. LHMask me a question 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Andrevan: I have no dog in the fight. I have read over the RFA, but I don't know the candidate and I think you're a fine bureaucrat. Additionally, I think that your conclusion is quite defensible. However, I think that you should reverse yourself and let one of our many other bureaucrats close the RFA. Just as administrators should not close AFDs they have voted in; the same should apply for bureaucrats closing RFAs if they had a strong enough position to vote in it to begin with. NW (Talk) 22:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm bluntly amazed that an involved bureaucrat not only closed an RFA as successful at 74% but is vigorously defending his close. This does not speak well - at all - to Andrevan continuing to hold crat permissions. Crats exist to implement the will of the community, not to supervote discussions they've participated in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Motion

A motion: That the community, by consensus, directs the rescission of the closure of NA1000's RfA and further directs that it be re-closed by an uninvolved bureaucrat or bureaucrats.

Point of order....

  • There is no basis in policy here, it is a fruitless endeavor. It isn't a matter of my agreeing, it is from experience. There is some precedent, when a Crat resysopped someone that arguably didn't qualify, and even Arb didn't have the authority to force the Crat to revert, they would have to desysop by motion. I know because I filed the case, licked my wounds afterwards. User:Polarscribe. If you want to desysop him, you have file a case at Arb, and it must be for cause. In a nutshell, the sole authority to remove the bit lies solely with Arb. The community has zero power to force a Crat to do that. That is why I started WP:RAS to change that fact, which failed. This poll has no authority, unless you just want to count heads. Technically, Andrevan can't even unbit him without Arb requesting it, he lacks the authority, even if the community demands it. If you want Andrevan Crat stripped, that would be a different filing at Arb, but they would probably combine cases. In short, there is no standing and it isn't likely to happen except at Arb, that is where it would happen. Dennis - 2¢ 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Forgot to add, it IS a problem that he voted, I certainly agree. The question is one of remedy, and we can't form a remedy ad hoc. Dennis - 2¢ 22:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    An adminning would seem to be a fairly easy technical reversal. And as Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, it should be done straightaway. It was a terrible close. LHMask me a question 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, I want to stress, I'm taking no sides here: IAR can't apply in something this big. Arb can handle it with an emergency motion if they deem it necessary. But the key is this: the only body who can desysop an admin is Arb, and technically Jimbo, who I doubt will get involved as long as Arb is capable. Dennis - 2¢ 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know that the poll is necessary. The discussion seems good enough to me. I don't think we're trying to force a change. Rather, we are trying to convince him that a change is needed. Moreover, even if we don't convince him, other crats can discuss among themselves what's best. I don't see any need for or requirement to go ArbCom for what we're doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's assume for a moment that the motion above has clear and overwhelming support. Any crat would be entitled to give effect to it, invoking IAR if need be, and be entirely immune from criticism. The community is perfectly entitled to make the rules up as we go along to correct egregious errors such as this. (In any case, as Bbb23 alludes to above, the real purpose of my motion is to force Andrevan's hand to rescind his own close). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That Crat would be bit stripped at Arb. No Crat is crazy enough to do it. Dennis - 2¢ 22:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Any crat that cannot see such an obvious error in judgement, should not be a crat. I don't mean making the mistake, I mean the absolute refusal to see such an obvious mistake and then defend it. I saw this as soon as it was closed, and figured he just forgot he voted in the RfA and even though I wanted an explanation, decided to AGF. Which was obviously incorrect based on his comments after being informed there is a problem. Saying there is nothing we can do, is not correct either. With something this obvious, there is definitely something the community can do, and demand be done. I don't know Andrevan or the RfA candidate, but any 3rd party can see the egregious error in judgement here. Dave Dial (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's the crats' job to rule on RfAs. Here, one did and is receiving enormous pushback from the community. Let's say the crats get together, as they sometimes do in RfAs before making a decision, and have a discussion about the close. Let's say that they agree that NA should be promoted. Either they leave the close alone or they add another crat to the close or replace Andrevan's close with someone uninvolved. Either way, no one is desysopped. Let's assume they agree that NA should not be promoted. Then, I think they need to decide whether they have the authority to reverse Andrevan's action or whether they should go to ArbCom, either for clarification or for a motion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
      • One more note, if the Crat voluntarily reversed his close, and another uninvolved Crat voluntarily closed it and it had the same conclusion, the bit, then this would be unprecedented, would make flipping bits moot, and would be, well, borderline but maybe within policy. The key is NO crat may remove that bit without Arb or Jimbo. This is a bit of a "sleight of hand", but if the Crat really feels that passing is justified, it might, maybe, I don't know, pass muster. That is about the only solution short of Arb I can see. Passing at 74 isn't that remarkable, it is the vote that matters here. As far as coulda/woulda/shoulda, take it to arb, if you want a solution, this half assed one is the only one I see short of arb. Dennis - 2¢ 23:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I was also rather shocked to see this closed without any discussion or rationale and by someone who had !voted. But Dennis makes a great point: having given NA1000 the bit, the 'crat CAN'T take it away. So he can't reverse the closure or let someone else do it. What I would suggest is that the closure should stand but should be "seconded" by some uninvolved 'crat, so that there is never any stain or doubt on NA1000's adminship. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • My 2 cents: This looks like an error in judgement on the part of the closing crat though I think an honest one. I'm not seeing anything malicious here. But I agree on principal that an involved crat should not normally close an RfA unless it's a blizzard one way or the other. For an involved crat to close an RfA with the yea !votes in the 70-80% range was bound to raise eyebrows. The question is what do we do about it? And I have to admit that I don't have any good suggestions. One thing I have learned over time is that in life sometimes mistakes happen. And sometimes they can't be fixed, or the fix isn't worth the trouble. My gut is telling me this might be one of those situations. Full Disclosure: I supported NA and stand by my !vote. I also think the close went the right way based on the relative strength of the arguments. But yeah,someone else should have done it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Well Xeno's statement below is enough. An uninvolved Crat has confirmed the close. I don't think anything more needs to be done. -- GB fan 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think a crat chat is necessary, unless other crats demand one. Closing RfAs is (part of) what we elected crats for, and what happened here shouldn't be viewed differently from Xeno having closed it in the first place. wctaiwan (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from other bureaucrats

I personally would never knowingly close an RfA that I had supported or opposed (even exceedingly obvious cases), just as I would never close an RfC in which I opined. I don't think it's unprecedented, but I can't find another case at the moment.

For the present case: I thoroughly reviewed this RfA last night before bed (while it was "pending closure") and was leaning towards promotion. I decided to sleep on it and see what new opinions arrived overnight and then make the closure in the morning, waking up to find it had already been closed. (At the time, I didn't notice that Andrevan had also supported.)

If Andrevan wishes to vacate their close, I would be willing to re-close the RfA, or you can just take this as a "seconding" of the promotion. (I don't think it's necessary to remove and re-add the bit - process wonkery and all, but if consensus is that it is, we could ask Northamerica1000 to assent to the procedure.) –xenotalk 23:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. Let's do this. I'm going to remove the bit and then you can add it back. I don't think we need to ask anyone as there is clearly community support for the "re-close." I'll wait until you confirm and then do it. OK? Andrevan@ 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think removing the bit itself is strictly necessary (and it's not one of the allowable reasons) but if you want to invoke IAR then I won't stand in your way. –xenotalk 23:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So done, please go ahead. Thanks. You might want to edit the RFA too, pointing to this ad hoc crat chat. Andrevan@ 23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that would satisfy most, with Andrevan admitting a mistake. For the record, I would have done the same as you, thought about it, but passed the RfA. Which I think most would. The problem is the closer, and the refusal to see obvious inappropriate close when involved. Thanks for the comment. Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Wait--so now 'crats can remove the bit, as long as his preferred outcome remains in place? I'd think it'd be more appropriate to put the close to a 'Crat chat and see what the community of 'crats thinks. LHMask me a question 23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
(non Crat) NA needs to request removal or just don't do it at all, you can't just remove it. I don't think that precedent is a good one. Dennis - 2¢ 23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Too late guys. I've desysopped NA and Xeno can now go ahead and resysop. So the discussion can soon be closed. Thanks for your cooperation. Andrevan@ 23:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So, you waited for a 'crat who agreed with your close to offer to close it in your preferred way, and then you decide to do the "right thing"? You just keep digging. LHMask me a question 23:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would have done the same if another crat had come by offering to re-close without telling me what he would have done. But I guess you'll never know if that's really true except for AGF, which you seem to conspicuously lack. Andrevan@ 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Given your intransigence and tone-deafness above? No, I don't believe you. And that's not a failure of AGF, that's using common sense. LHMask me a question 23:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Motion to close discussion

Since I was promptly reverted when I tried to close the discussion. Let's close it up so that Northamerica1000 can get on with his life, as this is really unfair to him. Andrevan@ 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt that your main concern is Northamerica1000. If the discusssion is to be closed, you are not the one to do it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh. If you have a problem with me, start an RFC. The community has spoken and the issue has been resolved. It's time to close this discussion here with no future prejudice to having one elsewhere pertaining to whatever you think hasn't been said. Andrevan@ 00:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not yours to say when it's time to close. You've been out of line every step of the way here, and you need to stop digging. LHMask me a question 00:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect (and not sure any is in fact due), I am not digging a hole. I've already reversed my action and Xeno has taken over the close. So inasmuch as there was a hole, I am no longer in there. There's nothing else I can do. Andrevan@ 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed this snarky BS. Your parenthetical there is just absolutely beyond the pale. You've been digging a hole with your attitude throughout. You first refused to even explain your rationale. After more people asked, you (seemingly) came up with one. When asked to revert and let a different crat close, you first refused to do so. Then, when one showed up offering to simply reinstate the promotion, you suddenly change course. Now, you imply that I'm not worthy of respect, simply for challenging your bad behavior in nearly every step of this process. LHMask me a question 03:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've never previously had any issues with you. However, your behavior has been severely tone–deaf and it's getting increasingly frustrating. It was a bad idea to close an RfA you had voted in, especially as the RfA was in the discretionary range. You have done a very poor job of recognizing that you messed up. Now, you think it's a good idea for you to be the one who closes this discusion? To use your word, 'Sheesh.' Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's strange that you think you might have previously had issues with me since you have only been registered for a month. Anyway, I'm happy to leave this discussion open as long as people want to, but I do not see that there is anything further to discuss. Please feel free to show otherwise. Andrevan@ 00:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I said "I've never previously had any issues with you..." Oh, and October 28–November 23 is NOT a week. It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another to defend your mistake even after it is obvious you are wrong. But apparently that's not worth discussing in your view. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It has been discussed. And I've done what the community asked for, which was reverse myself. What else do you want me to do? Andrevan@ 00:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Try walking away from the discussion and maybe it will just die off. You really should have had the sense to not close a discussion that was being held regarding your having improperly closed a discussion. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with this being closed. The issue has been dealt with, I suspect the trouting has been accepted, and things can only degenerate from here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold fast, there. Closing this discussion here so quickly gives, rightly or wrongly, the appearance of impropriety. I speak as as supporter of NA1000 in the Rfa, who disagreed with the opposers rationales and said so. However, there are a number of points that should be discussed further, in my view, and this page is the place to do that. Jusdafax 00:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    What points might those be then? Andrevan@ 00:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    If you're going to continue to employ your current discussion tactics, you should probably just disengage. LHMask me a question 00:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Clearly I have gotten the point because I reversed my action. I would like to know what further issue is on the table? Andrevan@ 00:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, I don't think you have. If you had accidentally closed this, forgetting you had voted in it, that would be one thing. A simple "trouting" would do. But no, you knew you had voted in it, and still decided to close it. When challenged, you initially offered no explanation other than claiming it "wasn't controversial" and was "discretionary." When further challenged, you came up with what seemed to me an ex post facto justification for the close, and refused to revert it. You maintained that position until a 'Crat appeared that said they'd be willing to restore the promotion if you reverted. Only then did you agree to revert, which seems rather convenient. When asked to resign your cratship, you dismissed the possibility out of hand. LHMask me a question 02:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    INVOLVED specifically excepts non-controversial, straightforward instances or minor involvements. I felt like this one was. The community is saying loud and clear that it isn't. So, thus my change of position and apology. There's not much else I can do here. Andrevan@ 02:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think that your dogged determination to be right in this and the obtuse argument you put up and defended is really worrying. Your lack of judgement should be of concern to the community. How about a confirmation RfB? Leaky Caldron 00:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I object to your characterization, and clearly I am not determined to be right since I reversed my action. If you want to comment on my conduct further you may open an RFC, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a closed issue. Andrevan@ 00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jusdafax. I also supported, but this transcends that. The procedure that was used wasn't founded in policy, and is a huge IAR. Good or bad, this needs to left open for at least a day. Not everyone lives on the east coast of the USA, not everyone has the same hours at their work. If you want the community to support the action, you pretty much have to let them opine and not stand in the way of it. Nothing is served by closing it this early. If we make returning admin wait 24 hours to get their bit back, we can leave the door open for this FUBAR. Dennis - 2¢ 00:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (multiple ec's) To say this was an irregular close is an understatement. For starters, it has been my understanding that bureaucrats don't remove the admin flag unless requested to do so by the admin in question. If NA1000 did not so request, does this set a new standard of bureaucrat powers? I find myself troubled by this out of process "fix" which seems to create more problems than it solves. As for the original close by an involved 'crat, is there precedent for that, and if not, should that be formally prohibited? It does indeed appear to apply to WP:INVOLVED. I think the opposers concerns need to be addressed instead of being swept under the rug. Jusdafax 00:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Is there no existing policy that prohibits a crat from closing an RfA he has voted in? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that the whole community needs to have a chance to weigh in on this, and I think you're doing Northamerica1000 (and me) a disservice by turning this into some kind of referendum. There's no new information that is going to show up in the next 24 hours; the RFA is over. Any bureaucrat is empowered to close the RFA. I did so, the community objected, and now Xeno has done so. If you have further requests or complaints, please speak up. Otherwise we are beating a dead horse. That being said, I am also apparently beating the dead horse, so I'm going to walk away from it. If anyone has further discussion that they'd like me to comment on, please use my talk page. Andrevan@ 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) with lots of people. I agree with Jusdafax and Dennis, it's much too soon to close, especially because I want to hear from more crats. 34 users have bureacrat rights, see this list. Any experienced user will know that some on the list are inactive, but also that many are active — I don't want to guess how many, nor spend my limited wikitime researching it, but many is not misleading. So far only one of them all (one who endorsed Andrevan's controversial action) has commented here. When I first read the thread, I thought that there must be some crats' own Blue code of silence keeping the others away, but then I realised the thread had only been open three and a half hours, and that my first notion had been unfair. Crats are volunteers too, and are in all sorts of timezones like the rest of us. Please leave the discussion open for at the very least another 24 hours. Andrevan, the issue on the table is not to make you eat crow, but to see whether something different should be done about NA1000's adminship. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC).
    • (edit conflict) Just joining in on the conversation--I see no issue at all with a crat reverting their own log action if they decide it was needed, as was done in this case, the reversion would have left the RFA still pending closure which was done--nothing else to discuss about the RfA. — xaosflux Talk 00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Technically, Crats are forbidden from debitting someone outside of an Arb order or request by the admin. Even in emergencies, they want a Steward to do it. Dennis - 2¢ 00:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Then, this "fix" in fact compounds the problems of a 'crat closing an Rfa they !voted in. The actions appear to be not only inappropriate but arguably a violation of policy that, if not addressed, leave considerable confusion in their wake. Jusdafax 01:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Closure for at least 24 hrs per Bishonen and Dennis. This entire affair has been one giant cluster bleep and we need time for other editors and crats to at least have the opportunity to discuss it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I opposed, but the last thing I would want to do is to subject NA1000 to double jeopardy. As I see it, Andrevan was wrong to close an RfA in which he had commented, and was also wrong not to provide at least a brief statement of his reasoning for the close, because it was in the discretionary zone and not a slam dunk one way or the other. It's already happened, but I hope that message is understood by all the crats going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Close - We're here to write an encyclopedia, everybody should get a grip and return to producing content. Nick (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Close Xeno has just wrote a very fair close rational for the RfA which hopefully makes clear why there was consensus to promote. Can't believe some are attacking a usually excellent crat who made a minor procedural error, and took almost two hours to recognize the mistake. So crats are human too, who knew? The swift resolution with an IAR fix was vastly better than dragging this out with a lengthy discussion. North may be a cool cookie, but candidates can ride an emotional roller-coaster during a fairly close RfA. Totally unfair to raise the stress levels again just at the point they've started to relax as it seemed all over. If anything the quick fix shows why crats deserve the extra big bucks. No one can avoid mistakes, and almost no one can always accept they've made a mistake the instant it's pointed out. It's how you act in the aftermath that counts, and Andreavan has shown class. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not close, do not promote until more 'crats have weighed in. This was not a "minor procedural error." This was a 'crat knowingly closing a contentious RFA that they themselves had acrimoniously participated in. Andrevan even seems to have had a history with the editor whose oppose rationale he insulted in his support. This is a major breach of trust and, in my opinion, should result in Andrevan losing the 'crat bit, either by laying it down under a cloud, or through community consensus. Even people who supported the RFA have noted how bad this action was. LHMask me a question 02:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    While it's true that I've interacted in a somewhat unpleasant way with TParis, that would make me INVOLVED with TParis, not with Northamerica1000. The same concern I had with TParis' vote was echoed by Xeno in his close. Nonetheless, it totally makes sense why the community is unhappy about this, because it looks like I am INVOLVED with Northamerica1000 as well now, which is why I have apologized and self-reverted here. INVOLVED excepts non-controversial, straightforward, and minor instances. My mistake was in reading this that way, which clearly it is not. Andrevan@ 03:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think you knew very well that a 74%er closed as successful, with lots of opposition, and a ton of neutrals, was not uncontroversial. I think you're smarter than that. But I think you did it anyway, because you thought NA1000 deserved to be an admin, and because you didn't like one of the lead oppose voters. You made that very clear in your snarky oppose vote. That, combined with the fact that you had sworn not to close RFAs in which you voted during your RFB should lead to your laying down the crat tools. You've made very clear, though, that you're not going to do so, even in the face of such an egregious breach of trust. Think of it this way: if you stood for an RFB right now, there's no way you'd pass. That should tell you something about the breach of trust this is. LHMask me a question 03:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how my oppose comment was snarky. I think Xeno's close explains well some of the mitigating factors regarding the oppose discussion, including TParis' personally motivated remarks. In fact, what you are accusing me of doing -- acting due to personal animosity for a user -- is what TParis was doing, which is why I opposed for that reason. This is all moot though since I have vacated my original close. Andrevan@ 03:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You only "vacated" your close once you were assured it would immediately be reinstated. There was nothing noble in your behavior there. My issue is with your judgment in even making the close. Had Xeno made the initial close, and provided the rationale currently provided, I'd have disagreed with the assessment, but would have AGF'd in his case, as he was uninvolved. You were not, knew you were not, and closed a controversial RFA anyway, without providing even the barest rationale. That shows such poor judgment that I believe were you to stand for a reconfirmation, you would not be reconfirmed, and it wouldn't be close. That's altogether a differenct question than whether NA1000's RFA should have been closed as successful. (Personally, I still feel like it should have been submitted to a crat discussion, but that's beside the point.) LHMask me a question 03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The nice thing about AGF is that you need to do it anyway, even when you disagree with someone. As I've explained, I felt my INVOLVEment was too minor and inconsequential to prevent me from closing the RFA, but I've backed down on this point. AGF doesn't allow you to assume that I knew this would happen - if I knew it would happen why would I have done it? This was a passing RFA which I voted in. I shouldn't have assumed that people would see my participation as minor. Andrevan@ 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you knew thus would happen. I think you very much hoped it would go without notice. LHMask me a question 05:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC

As I was unable to find a policy explicitly forbidding a crat from closing an RfA that said crat has voted in, I have opened an RfC to propose such a policy here: Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats#RfC:_Voting_crats_cannot_close. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:INVOLVED actually covers it. Even using the crat tools would quality as an administrative function or higher. There is zero question in my mind that this is not allowed. If an admin can't vote and close an AFD, Crats can't vote in and close the same RFA. If this had been a 100/0 vote, even in the most obvious case....he can't. Crats exist for the purpose of having the highest trust from the community, which is why they have the highest level of support required. Arbs need 50% +1, Admin need ~75% and Crats need ~85%, so the level of scrutiny is higher in both obtaining and using that bit. To me, it is beyond discussion, beyond debate and utterly inconceivable that policy would allow a Crat to participate and close the same RFA. He has unclosed this one, so it is moot, but there wasn't a doubt yesterday, there is no doubt tomorrow. I don't recommend the RFC because of this, as I can't possibly fathom anyone with any familiarity with policy disagreeing, making the discussion moot. Dennis - 2¢ 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Well, even if you can't fathom anyone disagreeing, the fact is than an involved crat closed an RfA. It won't hurt to explicitly state that this isn't allowed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, it can hurt, but I won't dissuade you further. Dennis - 2¢ 01:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan's pledge of non-closure of involved Rfa's during his successful RfB

This doesn't look good. Given the fact that Andrevan specifically stated during his RfB that he would not do what he has now done, I think the only moral thing for him to do is resign his Bureaucrat flag. We can't condone this type of behavior which strikes at the credibility of the 'pedia: he was given his powers by making this pledge. Jusdafax 01:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to resign, but I am happy to apologize. I've been a bureaucrat for over 7 years, this is the first time the community has expressed their displeasure (that I can recall), and I have reverted myself and certainly won't make such a mistake again. Andrevan@ 01:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that. I think that's what most editors here wanted to see. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Tryptofish it is simply not enough, in my view. Andrevan, you said in your RFB "I will not register a support or oppose opinion AND close the same RfA." This is a definitive statement and you have breached the trust of the community. Sir, will you not do the right thing? At the very least, your conduct calls for reconfirmation, but it would be simplest to walk away now. Not to do so, again in my opinion, will be a messy timesink and tarnish the reputation of our project. I ask in all seriousness and hope you understand that I bear you no ill-will, and indeed don't recall previous interaction with you. It's just that you really blew it, given your pledge. Jusdafax 01:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand, but that was 7 years ago, I've admitted that I was wrong, reverted my action, and apologized here. So no, I will not resign or stand for reconfirmation, I'm human, and this simple procedural mistake has not harmed the project or changed the actual result. I think your "sir?" is a little melodramatic. I'm here to get things done. When I overstep bounds, it's in the interest of progress and the project. Andrevan@ 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite ready to call for his resignation. That pledge was 7 years ago and I imagine that Andrevan simply forgot about it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan I won't ask you to resign but you really need to recognize when multiple people tell you that you are wrong that you just may be. You did recognize it but it took a long time. If not for my respect for your years of service(I remember when you became a crat) I would ask you to resign. Chillum 01:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I think that is what I'm doing/have done. Andrevan@ 01:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Then as far as I am concerned this matter is settled. Not sure if everyone will agree with me though. Chillum 02:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Chillum, with respect, this now raises another awkward question, how long is a pledge in an RfA or RfB good for? Seven years is too long, so is four years still valid? Two? Is it any wonder the general editing community is dwindling away, given that these administrative/bureaucratic positions are for life yet there is no seeming accountability when there are clear cut violations of policy and the flag holders' own solemn pledges are shrugged off? 'Crats have one major job, and !votes are cast on that understanding. Now I'm being called melodramatic, for saying "Sir", and I now am forced, given Andrevan's reluctant demeanor throughout this discussion, reluctant apology only in the face of my raising his own words, the hasty and unseemly attempt to close, and flawed initial reasoning to question Andrevan's fitness for any position of authority at Wikipedia whatsoever. Jusdafax 02:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
With equal respect I agree breaking a promise is wrong. I also don't think that one fuck up over 7 years of good service is something to pursue. If a pattern emerges I will be among those calling for action, but not for an isolated incident. Chillum 04:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to drop the stick (you've expressed yourself) and recognize that Arbcom is your recourse if you want blood. I also am troubled by Andrevan's actions (not the initial mistake - those happen - but the subsequent evident lack of humility) but this isn't the place to perseverate. -- Scray (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And now I'm seeing what was needed. As for apologies, I'm familiar [3] as I've always lived by the code of making any apology at least as public as the mistake. I think Andrevan has done as much as I would expect of myself, and that is all I can ask. It isn't fun, but it is done. One of the disadvantages of Crats being put on a big pedestal, is that it is a hard fall when we push you off. I'm hoping that NA's adminship won't be considered under a shadow (by him or others), but there isn't anything I can think of to remedy that, it is just unfortunate collateral damage. Perhaps other crats can help. Dennis - 2¢ 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. Xeno's close was seconded by 28bytes so I can't see how this could cast a shadow on NA. Andrevan@ 02:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't, but I haven't talked to him or others. Time will tell, it was one hell of an RFA anyway. Mine was as well, but his beat mine out. Dennis - 2¢ 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted close

I'm sorry Salvidrim!, but I had to revert. This is a hot issue, and we can't ignore the community's right to opine. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. We didn't ask for it, it was thrust upon us, and yes, it is so unprecedented that we can't force editors to not discuss it. I would also note that a "motion to close" is by itself inappropriate. Like it or not, the community has a vested interest here, and we can not just silence them. Dennis - 2¢ 01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand, even if I disagree that there is anything left to discuss on this board. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Not everyone lives in the USA. Maybe someone sleeping in Europe has something to say. This is why we can't close. And it will just move somewhere else, and this is the right place to debate. Andrevan did a controversial thing, he shouldn't have been the one to motion to close, which isn't even a policy anyway. And he has yet to articulate that he understands that policy forbid what he did twice today. Again, I agree with his vote and close, just not his actions. Dennis - 2¢ 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dennis, not because we should necessarily undo the sysopping (and I hope at this point that we don't), but because there are larger issues to discuss, and the community needs to be able to discuss them. I, for one, would especially like to hear from more crats about their views, not of whether this RfA outcome was the right outcome, but of whether the procedures were appropriate. That really matters, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
THAT is the big one, hearing from other Crats. This whole situation was rushed, from close to revert, to rebit. It is unusual because Crats are typically NOT ones to rush. So yes, we do ask to hear from other Crats. A little guidance perhaps, some closure maybe. Ignoring it is impossible, someone already started an RFC for goodness sake. Dennis - 2¢ 01:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's rare that we wrap archive boxen around discussions at BN. Though I've tagged the thread resolved (as far as requiring the further intervention of bureaucrats), the community should feel free to discuss further. –xenotalk 01:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
While I understand the aversion for a closure-wrapper than implicitely puts a final stop to continued discussion, to my eye eveything that had to be discussed here has been discussed. There seems to be consensus (amongst the community & 'crats) that a 'crat who voted in an RfA should not close it. Andrevan has recognized the error, apologized, reverted themselves (both in closure and in sysopping), and another, uninvolved, 'crat stepped in and took the responsibility for the closure & sysopping. At this point, only two things seem to still be a point of meaningful discussion: policy about the whole thing (which is discussed at WT:CRAT), and Andrevan's 'crat userright, about which nothing will ever done outside of ArbCom, unless people are somehow hoping to break him down into resignation (which he has already declined). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It isn't our place to second guess what can be said. Closing increases the likelihood of problems. If there is nothing to say, fine, nothing will get said, but if an admin slams it shut, it looks like you are trying to stifle dissent. Perception matters. You have to provide a venue when there is a legitimate concern. Closing it implies any further comment isn't legitimate. This isn't ANI, the issues are bigger. Dennis - 2¢ 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I can agree with that. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from other bureaucrats (part 2)

  • It was an error to both participate in and close an RfA in the discretionary range, but contrary to popular opinion, we bureaucrats are not quite robots, but fallible people who make mistakes from time to time. Andrevan has, at the time I am writing this, acknowledged the error and undone his close, which gave a 'crat uninvolved in the discussion, Xeno, a chance to close it independently. It's true that undoing one's own RfA close is not explicitly allowed by policy as one of the rationales for removing a sysop bit, but I think it was nonetheless a reasonable thing for Andrevan to do given the realization that there were legitimate concerns about the close. Like Xeno, I was not involved in this RfA in any way, but having read over it now I believe that Xeno's (re-)close is sound. I don't see a need to hastily close this discussion, but neither do I see much need for anything else to be done at this point, either, given Andrevan's self-revert and apology and Xeno's close. 28bytes (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What a sensible closing (or not closing) commentary from 28bytes there. Let's leave it at that and now move on. If someone is aware of exciting reasons not to move on, such reasons had better be very, very persuasive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand this has become a disorderly free-for-all, but I'll risk one more comment. I tend to hew closely to policy and I've never been a fan of WP:IAR. That said, the result here is sound and letting it go is the best way to put this behind us. I'm not crazy about the length of time it took Andrevan to admit his mistake, but it's not resignation-worthy, and I'm sure in some ways it wasn't easy for him to do given how much criticism he had to take. Let's move on. This kind of prolonged drama is unhealthy and I'm sure it isn't fun for NA, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree pretty much exactly with what 28bytes said here. I would add that I also think that TenOfAllTrades makes a good point below, that it would have been prudent to be quicker to acknowledge the misjudgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nobody

OMG! Someone somewhere on Wikipedia made a mistake! And it's been fixed. And they apologized and won't do it again... and we're still here... why? NE Ent 03:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • This isn't particularly helpful. There is an RFC now, this wasn't fixed as quick as you think, and it was done with a huge dose of IAR the likes of which we've never seen before. Thankfully the discussion is moving towards healing and moving forward, but antagonizing isn't helping. Dennis - 2¢ 04:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we drop the stick?

Andrevan did something wrong. It took a long time and a lot of convincing before he backed down. This is true. But it is also true that he did back down and allow another crat to close this.

I am sure most of us agree this was a serious lapse in judgment. But I think we can also agree that over 7 years one incident does not make a pattern. If a pattern emerges I will fully support action but this is an isolated incident and I seriously doubt Andrevan will do this again regardless of what he thinks is right.

I suggest we let it go and if there is a repetition of such behavior we deal with it sternly. Chillum 04:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree. Everything that had to be discussed here has been discussed. Andrevan made a blatant error, then even if not immediately he recognized that, self-reverted, apologized. The RfA was re-closed by a second crat, who provided a very sound summary of the discussion in their rationale. A third crat endorsed the close. It's time for dropping the stick. Cavarrone 07:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't find it problematic that a 'crat could make an error. I also don't see an issue with the "annulment" of Andrevan's close and the re-closure by a different 'crat—though I wish that Xeno hadn't chosen to include his planned decision in his offer to Andrevan (it's not fair to the RfA candidate to do that sort of thing, as it gives the closure an unfortunately rubber-stampy wink-wink feel).
I do find it worrying that a 'crat's first reaction was not to say "Oops. You're right. I did vote in this RfA, so I shouldn't have been the one to close it. I'll undo my action, make my apology to the candidate for the confusion, and let another 'crat – of which we have, what, 34 or so? – do the job. Sorry guys, won't happen again." Instead, Andrevan's response was to double down, fully knowing that he had voted in the RfA, and that it had fallen into the 'discretionary' range, with an insistence that his discretion was just fine, thank you very much, so what's the big deal?
This is basic Recusal 101 stuff, basic adminship bread and butter. As a member of the community, it's extraordinarily frustrating to see someone who is supposed to be trusted to exercise cautious good judgement fail so completely to apprehend his responsibilty in this area, even after it was clearly and explicitly pointed out to him. And I'm stuck about what should happen next, because hey—anyone can make a mistake, and it feels slightly disproportionate to demand Andrevan's resignation for one mistake...even with his very uncomfortable and troubling push back against recognizing that mistake. It shouldn't be necessary to have to browbeat and lecture bureaucrats to get them to understand and follow WP:INVOLVED.
It shouldn't take "one last warning" for there to be concrete consequences to clear-cut failures of judgement like this, but so be it. Since now all of Wikipedia's bureaucrats should be well aware that they are not allowed to close RfAs in which they have participated, the community should be able to trust that this sort of nonsense won't be repeated. If, in the future, despite an abundance of caution, a 'crat mistakenly closes an RfA in which they were a participant, we should expect them to immediately, politely, and contritely undo their own error as soon as they become aware of it. There is now no room for any possible misunderstanding of the community's expectations on this basic point. Bureaucrats who push back on a very clear point like this again should be asked to resign, and if they fail to do so, they should expect their bureaucratship will be removed by ArbCom.
Assuming that the 'crats accept and understand this very straightforward point about their responsibilities to recuse, then I would say it is safe to drop the stick. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say here, except I believe that it's imperative that Andrevan resign his cratship. This is not one mistake. That would have been if he had seen what he'd done (closing an RFA that he posted a snarky vote to), immediately acknowledged the mistake, and let another crat close it. He did not do that. He made multiple "mistakes", in first simply dismissing the concerns with the proverbial wave of his hand, then posting what read (to me) like an ex post facto I'd-better-come-up-with-SOMETHING rationale to replace his initial, "It was in the discretionary range" rationale. He then refused to undo his close--until Xeno offered to immediately reclose it as "successful", at which time he suddenly changed course on that point. No, this was a long string of trust-breaking actions, albeit over a foreshortened time frame, not a one-off mistake. Think of it this way: were Andrevan to stand for a reconfirmation RFB, what are the chances that he would retain the trust of the community, do you think? I think those chances are very slim indeed, and as such, I think he should step down from his cratship. LHMask me a question 17:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Moot. And disagree in particulars to TenofAllTrades. It's basically clear what happened here, and nothing more is called for. Androvan closed in the manner that other Crats would enact the same in result (see Involved exception) - and he was right; Androvan discussed - the complaint and that he didn't just role over seems ungenerous - especially since DBrown objected to any reopening [reversal of the result]; apology for any error has been made, the end. Sure we can clarify the policy issue, but the rest is just too much (apparently, the "vote", should have been the "rationale" ) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC) [Amended after response] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't object to reopening, in fact, given my druthers, NA would have voluntarily surrendered the bit, the Crat would have reverted, and we would have went back to close fresh. I explained this on Bbb23's page, but didn't get to here due to ECs, before it was already kludged up. I objected to a Crat removing the admin bit without authorization from Arb or the admin, as a prior Arb case had indicated that isn't allowed, and policy doesn't authorize it in any way. They did it anyway, under WP:IAR, which is risky but acceptable as long as the community accepts it. THAT is why this page needed to left open a day, to ensure the community accepts it. This wouldn't have been my first choice of how to handle it (obviously), but I accept it as essentially "moot" as well, because the result is the same. Dennis - 2¢ 18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • OK. I have refractored corrected that above but it makes no difference. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • So, it is okay for bureaucrats to push back when a community member points out that they have closed a (decidedly non-unanimous) discussion in which they were involved? I'm not calling for Andrevan to resign; I'm saying that any 'crat who, in the future, behaves the way Andrevan did should damn well know better, and would be obligated to resign. There's no cover of ambiguity to hide behind at this point, and the 'crats should be aware of and acknowledge that. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask, and I don't see which part of my comment you're actually disagreeing with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting one should only argue when they are right? The point of a discussion is for people who disagree on what is right and wrong to convince each other and arrive as a common conclusion. That happened here. Chillum 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan's action was obviously and egregiously wrong. It wasn't close. Yet he defended it vigorously until it became obvious to him that it was more than just me calling out what he'd done. And he refused to reverse his action until he knew that there was a crat who would immediately reinstate it. Every step of the way he's been out of line. LHMask me a question 00:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yet we still need to move on. A light bulb did go off, he seems to get it, and while it was ugly, we managed to kludge together a solution, so the system worked, thanks to IAR. I was as frustrated as anyone, but I'm quite confident that this will never happen again, which is what matters. Dennis - 2¢ 00:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) No. He disagreed with what is "controversial" for any crat closing where there was a super-majority in agreement on the result, no defective !voters, no canvassing, serious good-faith nominations, no opposition that raised a categorically disqualifying objection (eg. the nominee is a sockmaster, etc.) - he asserted that other crats would arrive at the same result, and he was right. He was wrong that he should have done the closing because it was procedurally in appearance problematic but by that time, it was done and done, and it is still done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
That he didn't realize that such a contentious RFA, where there was significant opposition, a lot of neutrals, and in which he himself had !voted was a controversial close speaks very poorly of his judgment. That he didn't immediately self-revert makes it even worse. That he repeatedly defended the close, is just utterly egregious. There's just no excuse for defending that close, after it was questioned. Period, full stop. LHMask me a question 01:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No - the close is the same as the other Crats - so the evidence is contrary to your claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break to give my comment greater prominence

Presently there is no language at WP:CRAT stating that a bureaucrat should not act on RFAs where they have voted or otherwise been involved. This brouhaha strongly suggests that there should be. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no duplication. WP:INVOLVED refers explicitly to actions taken in an admin capacity, and makes no mention of actions taken as a bureaucrat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Then take it to the RFC discussing this exact thing. Almost everyone agrees Involved already covers it, including those that want more language, but you are free to disagree there. Dennis - 2¢ 18:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) WP:CRAT includes WP:ADMIN explicitly, in the first paragraph of the lead section:
Actions by bureaucrats are also bound by the policy on use of administrative rights.
That, in turn, includes the section WP:INVOLVED. The text there doesn't specifically list every possible community discussion where an admin might be required to make a decision and a close (AfD, RfD, CfD, AN, AN/I, RFPP, ANEW, AE, etc.); in fact, it offers no specific examples. It's just a blanket assumption and admonition that involved admins shouldn't close any discussion where they are involved, especially if the outcome is contested. Bureaucrats should not be shocked, surprised, or confused that the community and policy expectation of them is exactly identical for the additional types of discussion for which closure is the exclusive preserve of 'crats. We don't need to spell out explicitly every type of discussion where this applies for admins—it's just all of them. Bureaucrats are expected to be neither children nor wikilawyers, so specific enumeration of their identical recusal obligations should be even less necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I don't know how I missed that sentence... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It depends when you read the page; the sentence was added earlier today. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, nuts. Didn't realize that was new text. Should have been obvious even when unstated, though. It should be blindingly obvious now, certainly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff from TP

While we seldom archive things here, I know of at least 4 people, and likely more, who would think this is a good idea, so I'm closing this without comment as to the merits. Dennis - 2¢ 02:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apologies for being late to the conversation, I was not at home yesterday nor this morning. According to this diff, Andrevan recalls a specific bad experience with me that they seem to be holding a grudge on. The same discussion Andrevan said that was also one where I was being critical of him here. I'm rather concerned that NA1K's RfA close was to settle a personal grudge against me as the most vocal opponent, as even User:Xeno points out, and tool use to settle personal grudges is a BIG no no - I don't care how anyone looks at it. Andrevan was involved even before he left a comment in that RfA - he was involved with me. With that in mind, I have no idea what the original dispute was that leads to the first diff I posted but apparently Andrevan does. I suspect that if it was under these same circumstances, that Andrevan may not be suitable for a 'crat anymore.--v/r - TP 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious battlefield mentality and refusal to AGF here, it is striking to me that you feel this is about you - Xeno and other users were also concerned with your personal vendetta-driven !vote on the RFA, and you appear to be approaching this with a similar kind of mentality. Yes, I did contribute this analysis to the discussion, which made me INVOLVED, a point I have conceded should have stopped me from closing the RFA. Nonetheless everything I wrote that Xeno echoed in his close applies still. The dispute, by the way, that I referred to there was one in which a user felt that I was accusing him of being a misogynist, if that rings a bell. We can dig it up if necessary, but I'm not sure that it reflects very well on you, and I don't see why this should turn into a mudslinging contest when it's effectively over with no harm done. Andrevan@ 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
AGF would be the thing you should have done when you accused me of a vendetta in your RfA !vote. "personal vendetta-driven !vote" is ad hominem. Despite my requests, no one has found a single negative interaction I have ever had with NA1K. No diffs have been shown. You know, like the one I just showed that proves you have a vendetta against me. An "obvious battlefield mentality" is the kind you display when you pursue vendettas against people you have a grudge with. Again, like I've proven that you have done. You seem to have a problem showing diffs to support accusations. Similar to when you were casting aspersions in the Christianity thread. And I suspect if I recall the previous dispute now that you were also making accusations of misogyny without any diffs to support your accusations and/or were taking something completely out of context and putting it in a different light. If you'd like to find those diffs, I suggest you do so. Showing a pattern of behavior of you personalizing disputes is a great idea, please do that.--v/r - TP 01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, this is pretty amazing to read. Watching you turn everything on its head is a fascinating kind of acrobatics. Calling your vote a vendetta is not ad hominem. Here's what you wrote. "NA1K lacks good judgement. Despite being well aware that I did not want to interact with him anymore, he felt the need to twice make a bunch of edits to an article I was working on getting to FA status. Now, while I won't go and say his edits were unhelpful, and I don't want to claim ownership, but the edits do demonstrate a lack of good judgement in staying away from each other." - you opposed NA1K in a way that Xeno described as, "Some of the comments in opposition seemed to stem more from personal disagreements or differences of opinion, rather than the candidate's ability to execute the duties of an administrator. Many wrote "per TParis" or "per Drmies" (or both). But even TParis, arguably the most vocal among the opposition wrote that he didn't feel Northamerica1000 would abuse the tools and that they would support the candidate if the tools could be unbundled [1]; while a large portion of Drmies' opposition concerned a difference of opinion on a content-related issue." I think that about sums it up, which is exactly what I meant in my comment, and I don't hold a grudge, although you apparently do. I'm going to back off from it now and I suggest you do the same. As to the misogyny dispute, if you dig it up, it will be quite clear that I was defending women, and those who took that as accusation of misogyny were betraying an oversensitivity to that kind of criticism, which rarely bodes well. Andrevan@ 02:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If that's what you meant, then I strongly suggest you read up on the definition of a vendetta and a disagreement. Xeno had a right. NA1K and I disagree on the importance of WP:BEFORE and his drive-by tagging in AfDs that I closed which I asked him to quit doing and also tagging for ARS. I explained policy to him in both cases and he never got it, so I asked him to leave me alone because I grew tired of explaining it to him over and over. There is no personal grudge. I think NA1K is probably a perfectly nice guy and he works really hard and I wouldn't want to see him off the project. But my experience with him is that he's a bad communicator. I don't call it a vendetta. I've had vendettas and I've settled one of them. The other is blocked for good. Apparently you've got one with me, which is regretable, and you've acted on it, which is even more regretable. I'd suggest in the future, though, that you not assume bad faith that I have a grudge on a user I oppose. I also suggest that you read the differences in what you and Xeno have said rather than the similarities.--v/r - TP 02:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
And for the record, I had already forgotten about the misogyny dispute by the time we had that other interaction on ANI. You took me completely off guard when you said we had previous interactions. I let personal disputes go after a time, so I had no idea who you even were other than knowing your name as a 'crat. Despite that, I still opposed both sanctions suggested for you as a matter of principal and because I do AGF.--v/r - TP 02:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, well I am happy to forgive and forget as well. Nonetheless, here's the difference between a disagreement and a vendetta, or at least what I mean by that here, and why I called you out. A disagreement is explaining why you disagree with the policy interpretation, like you did at first. A vendetta is, "Stay away from me from now on." You don't have the right to say that NA1K can't edit an article that you are working on. You can try to steer clear of him, but you can't order him to go away, and you certainly can't oppose for that reason. Andrevan@ 02:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I "ordered" anyone to do anything. I asked him politely here. If you can read that comment, my last one to him prior to the RfA, as a vendetta or anything other than courteous and polite then I'd actually really appreciate it if you'd point that out to me. My last comment to him in over a year was completely respectful and the epitome of politeness in my book. My oppose wasn't that he violated some order I had placed on him and if you read it like that then it was read in the wrong context. My oppose was that he lacked good judgement in editing an article knowing I was the primary contributor and in a way that could lead to a dispute after my polite request. He's not "in the wrong" but I would expect better judgement. I avoid getting the attention of people I don't want to talk to and many of them avoid getting my attention. That's how you avoid disputes. It has worked well for two years, I don't know why NA1K suddenly broke it. In doing so, he undid some of the copyediting I am explicitly asked for from a user from the guild of copyeditors. A copyedit I was depending on for the ACR. Again, I ignored it, made some changes and moved on. I wouldn't have said anything to him ever if the RfA had not come up. It was questionable judgement and questionable judgement is a reason to oppose in an RfA.--v/r - TP 02:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
And despite this, I'll take your offering hand and we can forgive and let it be. I'd appreciate if you'd ask me for more information the next time you think I have a personnal vendetta, though. Either against you or someone else. I'd be happy to explain myself.--v/r - TP 02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
OK then. Andrevan@ 02:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Somehow I don't think this is about you. Chillum 01:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no doubt at all that Andrevan has a personal grudge against TP, and that the grudge played a role in both his vote and his close. Nothing he's done, from his snarky support vote until now, gives me reason to believe otherwise. LHMask me a question 02:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I will certainly give your opinion the consideration it is due. Chillum 02:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Your passive-aggressive bullshit is noted. Unsurprising, of course. LHMask me a question 02:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't think that, do you? Despite a diff from a month ago proving Andrevan has a grudge against me. That's thick. Hard to think that when the user's support !vote specifically addresses me. Consciously, which is evident, or unconsciously - I was very much a part of their decision.--v/r - TP 01:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"That's thick"? So if you disagree with this user, it's OK to question his intelligence? Andrevan@ 01:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Whose intelligence am I questioning? Is there something else you use to describe someone to ignores the evidence placed in front of them and retorts with a pure unsupported contradiction as some form of "good" argument?--v/r - TP 01:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"Wrong"? Not "stupid." What do you believe "That's thick" means? Andrevan@ 02:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because you had a dispute does not make you the motive. Frankly I think you are assigning too much importance to yourself here. You may think I am "thick" but I think your belief that this is about you is egotistical. It probably has nothing at all to do with you. Go an re-read WP:AGF. Chillum 02:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Also "thick" in that context means low in intelligence, not wrong. It is in the dictionary, I assume you thought otherwise. Chillum 02:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Guys, it's over, you just don't know it's over. Since it appears re-closing this bickerfest would just get reverted, I guess I'm going to have to unwatchlist this page for a little while until everyone either loses interest, or files an RFCU (HAHAHA) or an ArbCom case - the only things that will actually achieve anything. Personally, I suggest losing interest. Could someone let me know when this "discussion" dies down so I can re-watchlist the page? I hate to remove it from my watchlist, it's usually an island of relative sanity in a sea of stupid, and I usually find it somehow comforting. Thank you in advance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eliminating the OTRS local user group

Resolved

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

The same as making it:
  1. Update abuse filters and test
  2. Have admins depopulate the group
  3. Put in a software request.
On that note, I did create Special:AbuseFilter/642 to monitor for the global group. It is the same as the already working filter for the local group, but currently set to log only. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Administrators, not bureaucrats, have the ability to add/remove OTRS-member. I'd think just removing the local permission as superfluous would be fine, unless someone can think of a reason to have it duplicated (perhaps the ability to use the local listuser function to find "OTRS-member"s?). –xenotalk 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary, we have Special:GlobalUsers/OTRS-member. The OTRS group may be documented at Wikipedia:Global rights policy. As a note, I've reorganized WP:UAL to better differentiate local and global rights. Cenarium (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I have filed similar thread at WP:OTRS noticeboard days ago. — Revi 12:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Is the new global group for any OTRS queue? or just permissions/photosubmissions? --Rschen7754 05:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Rschen7754, the group is for users with access to permissions and/or photosubmissions queues. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Legoktm: did the bug that made the filters not work mentioned on the OTRS noticeboard get resolved and #1 above was tested successfully? — xaosflux Talk 05:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Resysop Request

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

Perhaps one of the most verbose requests for resysop we've seen. This looks fine after the customary hold period. –xenotalk 01:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
This made me smile. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. TL;DR. No concerns I can see. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Resysop

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

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

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

Please remove my admin rights

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

 Done Your admin rights have been removed. Thank you for your service as an administrator; your work is appreciated. Best. Acalamari 01:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Could you remove my edit filter manager permission as well please - there's no obvious place to request such a removal so here seems as good a place as any given the background is already here. Dpmuk (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done -- GB fan 02:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
And thanks again for the quick response. Dpmuk (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting LGBT-knowledgeable bureaucrat's help

Resolved

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

Hi Crazytales, I am somewhat knowledgeable about LGBT matters and I am definitely regarded as friendly; if I can help - assuming no one else has helped but hasn't commented here - please do let me know and I'll see what I can do. Acalamari 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ta acalamari i have passed your username on to the user, she will probably contact you offwiki. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 05:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I am quite knowledgeable of the realm of LGBT (mostly the L and the T, though) and I'm more than friendly. I am the least active bureaucrat we have, but if there's anything I can do, let me know. I can be e-mailed via my userpage. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

De-flagging bot

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

Yes, this is  Done. Thank you, –xenotalk 11:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have usurped the bot globally, not just on meta, and notified Arbcom. Consequently this account has nothing to do with Dcoetzee any more. I am in the process of re-establishing the bot's operation on WMF labs. Note, the bot itself has a trouble free history of operation, the office action on Dcoetzee is an entirely separate matter. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I meant "Request is handled on meta". Also, I requested the removal of old account which is occupied by Dcoetzee, as it cannot contribute anymore. — Revi 12:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. To avoid doubt, Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is the account we hope to get running again soon. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added the usurped account to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots; it's not on the main list of Wikipedians by number of edits at the moment, but may be in the future if the list is extended beyond the top 10,000. Graham87 13:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa

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

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

I agree, I don't think temporarily re-sysopping now then re-desysopping a week from now is needed. I think noting it here is sufficient. If any of the affected editors want their rights back, there shouldn't be any problem restoring them on request. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thirded, seems fine. Andrevan@ 02:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed Anonymous Dissident on that list, now he only holds the crat permission. Has this happened before? Probably has no impact but I thought it worth bringing up. NativeForeigner Talk 03:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Once upon a time I contemplated being a non-admin bureaucrat. I don't think anyone has done it for any serious length of time. –xenotalk 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this happened with Taxman as well earlier this year. Widr (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and it also happened with Cecropia. Per the above-linked discussion, a bureaucrat needs to ask a steward to remove AD's 'crat bit. Graham87 09:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Xeno already did, the stewards are just holding it for the "proper" date. Courcelles 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Request

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

Desysop

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I am going through a ton of stress/health issues right now (had my wallet stolen with my apartment deposit money, car payment, insurance and all my credit cards $2000+ total which is totally devastating) and it's in my best interest to take a break from the tools while I figure all this shit going on IRL. I did promise when I asked for resysopping last time I won't ask for the removal of my tools again unless it's a permanent one, but please understand what I am going through right now and figure out why I'm asking the removal of my tools before questioning my judgement here. I do want them back, and will ask for them back when I get my life straightened out again, but not when I'm stressed out, about to blow any minute. Thanks Secret account 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Secret: I'm sorry life has thrown you such a curveball, and I can understand why you'd want to take a break. I do have a couple questions for you though, with regard to any future bit restoration:
  1. Do you plan to abide by the terms you agreed to here? Specifically, those are: at least six months must pass between desysopping and resysopping, and after those six months, you then either (A) convince a supermajority of the editors listed at User:Secret/recall that you should regain your mop or (B) pass another RfA.
  2. Is there a reason you don't want to do what you said at the bottom of this thread that you'd do when you got your bits back last time, and just use a wikibreak enforcer? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. I completely forgot about the recall agreement, as I was planning to return back within 6 months, and there is no way in hell I'm gonna go through the stress of another RFA that I know I won't pass. I'll use a wikibreak enforcer and withdraw this request. If an admin can add a wikibreak enforcer until January 1st as I have no idea how to add one to my mono book I'll really appreciate it. Secret account 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved|Request withdrawn. –xenotalk 18:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)}}

I won't do that. I do have a comment, it's winging towards you by e-mail. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC).
Let me guess: I did it wrong. Again. If I've made yet another admin mistake showing that Bish is technologically superior to me, I may very well request a desysop for myself. You young whippersnappers and your fancy computers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Wrong? I have no idea. I haven't looked. [Wings flapping frantically.] It should be reaching you round about … now! Bishonen's new-fangled carrier pigeon, 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Making my retirement official, please desysop me now. Also make my wikibreak enforcer indefinite. I want nothing to do with this site anymore. Secret account 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Secret: I recommend you take a few days (read: at least 5 days) to think about this, chew it over a few times, and evaluate whether you are 100% won't-ever-change-my-mind sure this is what you want to do. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am positive, I'm too freaked out over what recently happened as it never happened to me before in all my years in this project, but I heard horror stories about how it happened to other people, how the foundation got involved etc. This started when my wallet got stolen, my stress level went very high and I needed a wikibreak so I asked for the removal for the tools. I reconsidered it and backed off my request after Fluffernutter's comment because it was a temporary removal of the tools that was gonna last a few weeks. But then a certain IP commented here, it was ignored and reverted, and may seem like nothing major, but in actually was major harassment by a certain user in which I am contacting the foundation and there is no way in hell I'm going back to the project after this. Email me for further information. It's nothing to do with my stress level, but it involves my personal safety and I want absolutely nothing to do with the project anymore. If I ever decide to come back, it will be via a clean start, and after sufficient time passes. Secret account 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
After getting several emails, I need to think about this more, so close it for now. Secret account 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for desysop

Hello,

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

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

Desysop request

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

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

CHU/S

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

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

Regarding a usurp request

Resolved
 – Renamed successfully. 28bytes (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

There is precedent for usurping abusively registered names. The block won't preclude it. –xenotalk 02:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Will my request be processed normally then? The page says there's a few issues with the request, but I'm making the request due to the impersonation. Melody Concertotalk 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep!  Done by Snowolf. 28bytes (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:CHU/U backlog

Resolved

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

Since Sept 15 2014, 'crats no longer can usurp account. Only Stewards can usurp account. — Revi 09:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Not strictly true; if an account to be usurped is a global account it can be usurped via the global rename facility. That said, Theponderism I don't think in this case enwiki bureaucrats are best placed to handle your request. Try no:WP:USURP or m:SRUC. –xenotalk 12:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to forcefully take over an account

Resolved

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

Oh, and in case it's necessary to prove I am in fact Benoit Landry, let me know. I have identified to the Foundation already. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Desysopping of User:Secret

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda closed - Desysop of DangerousPanda

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

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

Deactivation of User:TorNodeBot

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

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you TorNodeBot for your essential hard work :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Useight

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

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

Resysop

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

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

Welcome back, sort of. I see no problem with your request. If no other crat has a problem, one of us will return your bit after 24 hours has elapsed from now. Good to have you, I remember your excellent contributions. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No concerns. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's been 24 hours and no concerns have been raised so  Done. Welcome back, Misza13. Acalamari 11:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. Good to see old friends still active. —Миша13 11:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Desysop (Ilmari Karonen)

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

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

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

Deflag archiving bots

Please remove bot flag from the following bots:

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

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

Request to voluntarily resign administrator permissions

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

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

Kind regards,

J.delanoygabsadds 03:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

SUL finalisation needed

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

It's now a steward task, and the main request page is m:SRUC. Looking at Special:CentralAuth/Thane, there's 9 accounts you don't own. 5 of them have no edits, so I think we can just move those out of the way... the tricky part will be handling the 4 that do have edits. --Rschen7754 07:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and ask a steward, or are you currently handling the 5 with no edits?  ● Thane — 07:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I would go ahead and ask on Meta; while I could do it myself, to be honest I'm not 100% sure how it's handled nowadays... and I don't want to screw something up. --Rschen7754 07:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks.  ● Thane — 07:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Resysop - Lee Daniel Crocker

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

Looks like it was purely a procedural desysop for inactivity, so I or another 'crat should be able to re-flag you once the now-standard 24-hour hold period is up. Welcome back! 28bytes (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
No concerns. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Inactive administrators: January 2015

The following admins can be desysopped as inactive:

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

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

Neelix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Resolved

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

Generally, retirement is no reason to pull sysop rights, unless there is a reasonable belief that the account is compromised. If the retirement is indeed permanent, the rights will be removed after a year, per normal inactivity. WormTT(talk) 10:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Entirely agree (non-crat comment). Crats remove the bit on self-request, for inactivity and at the request of Arbcom. Crats do not remove the bit because someone thinks that an admin should explain their actions before being allowed to act as an admin again - that's Arbcom territory, but Arbcom won't be interested in this. Clouds only start forming if there is a self-request to remove the bit, so that's not the case here either. BencherliteTalk 10:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries. At this point it would be a solution in search of a problem. I could see an interpretation of retirement as a self-request to give up the bit and make it just as easy to request a restore. That's a low bar but it still has a 'crat making a decision to restore the bit. The stress of the drama created from controversial calls seems to trigger breaks and retirements. To the extent that it also avoids scrutiny is hard gauge. You can close this. --DHeyward (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Desysopping

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

 Done. Enjoy your break! 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Barnstars, kitteh, and blinky things go on my talk page, please. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request removal of adminship please

Am retiring account. Password has been scrambled.

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

Removal of admin bit

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

 Done Thank you for your service. I hope you'll be back. Acalamari 13:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Have a good break if that's what's needed. Hope you'll return at some point. You'll be sorely missed in the meantime. KTC (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Really sorry to hear this - Dennis, as creator of WP:WER and someone who motivated me to go from a long term critic to a serious collaborator, you will be sorely missed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Resysop

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

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

Removal of admin bit

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

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

Can an unused account name be freed?

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

Maybe WP:LEAVE? — Revi 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That does contain changing the username; would it also free it? It feels a bit like overkill, though; most of that process wouldn't be neccessary. BTW, the name is Spaghettitoes (talk · contribs), which doesn't sound like one needs to worry about hogging it, but the user feels xe stole it from http://spaghetti-toes.tumblr.com. — Sebastian 03:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (amended 03:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) )
WP:RENAME. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 Resolved Thanks! That answers my question. — Sebastian 06:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please close

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

Could someone please close this discussion? [9]

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

Unless I'm mistaken, that appears to be a purely administrative (rather than bureaucratic) matter. –xenotalk 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, but could you suggest where to take it? As I said, I've tried to flag an administrator twice now. Lightbreather (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:ANRFC or an alternate soluton, since it's clear to anyone with two ounces of judgement that there is no consensus for an IBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

.

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

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

CHU/S

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

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

These days most renames are performed from Meta (by global renamer's centralauth-rename) and I cannot check user is blocked or not on meta's GlobalRenameUser special page. (Of course it is good idea to check centralauth and contribs page before performing rename.) — Revi 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, not to put too fine a point on it but renames are now handled by global renamers (some who are local bureaucrats, others who are not) and are subject to the m:Global rename policy as well as local policies and guidelines. (Ping @Maxim: to ensure they are aware of this discussion.) As far as the question, typically there will be some basic checks but sometimes renamers simply accept the bot's assertion of "No problems found" and process right from the page. –xenotalk 18:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That user tried an end-around, obviously trying to get someone to process the change and not notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

IMO, yes it does matter. I think the bureaucrats have a duty to do any due diligence. Otherwise why do we need this user group of incorruptibles? In a much lower level of the Wikipedia pecking order, as a pure example only, it's by checking on the work of New Page Patrollers or AfD reviewers that when I come across a poor patrol or review I discover socks, POV pushers, and spammers. By your reckoning, NE Ent, instead of digging for dirt, as an admin I should just let it go? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should exercise this oversight and discretion where appropriate as in this case, although I don't think we should penalize anyone for a simple mistake. However since the global rename policy this is no longer within the purview of enwiki, so perhaps we had best have this conversation in the appropriate. It's possible that the policy doesn't include this, although I believe the en wiki policy probably does encompass refusing to rename a sockpuppeteer. If the policy needs to be clarified or improved, that can't be done here. Andrevan@ 08:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure that's correct - for example, last year the en-wiki sockpuppeteer User:Pass a Method was globally renamed as User:North Atlanticist Usonian. But I agree there's nothing we can do here in relation to global renaming rules. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactive admins for February 2015

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

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

 Done Thanks for bringing this here, Graham87, and thank you to all four admins for their respective services. Acalamari 10:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Graham87:@Acalamari: Are we sure that the second notifications were sent for these four users. It's completely undocumented at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2015. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Armbrust and Acalamari: I for one didn't get this notification, for some reason; it doesn't seem like they were, but I don't think that's a major issue; if they really want their user rights back, they can ask for them. Graham87 10:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't receive either notification here. At any rate, as Graham87 has said, I don't think it's a big deal, at least on this occasion (it shouldn't become a regular habit). The notices on their talk pages are clear enough as is. Acalamari 18:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Tool request

I would like to request my reinstatement as an administrator. My account has not been compromised. waltpohl (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Walt Pohl (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
They usually wait 24 hours to make sure there are no issues. — Ched :  ?  11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Thanks, I appreciate it. Walt Pohl (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dweller that there is no cause for concern here. Pakaran 03:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Tool reinstatement request

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

Apologies, somehow became logged out during that edit so adding this note to properly attribute. Nine Tail Fox\talk 18:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You were procedurally desysopped on 1 November 2013, so there have not been 2 years of inactivity after that date. As such, I see no cause for concern with restoration after the standard 24 hour hold mentioned above. Pakaran 03:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done Welcome back. Pakaran 22:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Pakaran: Thankyou! Appreciated. Nine Tail Fox\talk 11:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stale CHU/S request

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

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

Desysop request

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

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Wifione Message 02:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you could...

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

Resysop request

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

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

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

I also recommend this request be granted after the customary waiting period. As the resignation was not to avoid scrutiny, there is nothing that I see that would preclude resysoping here. Maxim(talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Give this bot flag

Resolved
 – Local bot flag not necessary, edits being marked as bot edits already.

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

Actually per this all bots need to be approved. There's no exemption listed here. However, if it's really a Wikipedia Foundation bot, then those in the know will know about it and likely approve it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Link: "In addition, any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." - In this case, neither approval nor flag is required for it to function. A flag is requested to prevent clogging recent changes. In theory, we're requesting that a bot be flagged as such despite not needed approval to run. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm looking into this, the account is flagged as a bot (and was before it started editing) using a special global group. It isn't using the API... but I'm working with ops to try and figure out why the edits aren't being flagged. Jalexander--WMF 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. It looks like the edits are, correctly, being marked as a bot (as you can see on recent changes when you show bots/user space). It looks like the newbie contributions page (that view is just user space) does not actually distinguish between bot and no bot flag. I'm not sure what the criteria for the newbies page actually is... because the bot is autoconfirmed as well. Jalexander--WMF 19:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity desysop request

Resolved

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

Usually that's done with the others who are inactive on a monthly basis... --Rschen7754 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Per Emily Litella -- "Never mind!" NE Ent 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactive admins for March 2015

Resolved

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

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

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

Admrboltz has edited within the last hour, so is no longer inactive. --Rschen7754 22:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Thanks, stricken. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lixxx235: Thanks for the report; I don't mind if somebody beats me to the punch, even if they're a little early! :-) Graham87 10:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done with thanks to the five admins for their service. If someone could update the relevant lists, I would be grateful. WJBscribe (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the easy lists. I'm not sure how to do the actions though, could someone tell me what each column stands for? Thanks. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lixxx235: Thanks, I've done the rest. The actions list is based on the admin stats page. Graham87 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Graham87: Ah, ok, thought I was going to have to count them by hand :P --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove Bot flag

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Remove the bit

Resolved

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

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

Rename request

Resolved
 – In future hiding is better than rename for this than rename and can be requested directly to stewards ( stewards@wikimedia.org ). –xenotalk 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I've globally suppressed the username. Is there any benefit to renaming it over this course of action? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose that there is no local distinction between hidden and oversighted (and that that name shouldn't be oversighted). Would hiding globally be sufficient? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess that's enough, thanks, though the offensive name is still visible by clicking on the link above. It's no longer in the list of users, or in the log of my actions. The important thing is that nobody should come on it by chance, and particularly that the attacker should not be able to find it to show to anybody. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone should delete the talk page per IAR. NE Ent 10:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Readmin

Resolved

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

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

It wasn't under a cloud when I did it, I see no problems with doing this after the standard 24h waiting period. WormTT(talk) 08:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No concerns here. Pakaran 17:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete rename

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

Hi Valfontis. First of all I apologise that your rename was discussed so publicly. I am going to see if we can get that deleted (or at least make it so it isn't indexed by google). There are plenty of examples of this phenomenon and there were plenty of renames that raised no privacy issues whatsoever that could have been used to illustrate the same point. As to merging the contributions, that isn't possible yet but is being implemented. I expect the features will be live within a few months or so, although experience tells me these things can take a while. WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
PS. Are we using gmane to host official wikimedia lists, or does gmane just copy this content from elsewhere? WJBscribe (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The MediaWiki API mailing list archives are publicly accessible on lists.wikimedia.org, so I supposed they could be crawlable and copiable by external services (such as gmane). I don't know if that is intentional not if it could (or should) be prevented. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Let me ponder that and get back to you. My old name is around on an estimated jillion talkpages, so it's not like people can't connect the dots. Thanks for the replies. Valfontis (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I've pondered, don't worry about it. @WJBscribe: any progress on the indexing issue above? In the meantime, where should I watch for the merge feature to go live? Valfontis (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Valfontis: Account merges would likely be handled at m:SRUC or some variant of that. –xenotalk 13:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno, I'll bookmark it. Valfontis (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
On the other issue, there's a limited amount we can do since the mailing list posts were picked up by third party sites. That's one of a number of reasons why people should be careful what they say on WMF mailing lists. That said, the original mailing list posts are still picked up by google, and that is something that we ought to be able to address. WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@WJBscribe: The archived versions of mailing list posts hosted on lists.wikimedia.org shouldn't be indexed by Google per the relevant robots.txt file. Graham87 08:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Reinstatement of administrative permissions

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

Dear all

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

Please let me know if you require any further information.

Kind regards

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

I might be wrong and a bureaucrat will need to confirm this, but my reading of Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy inactivity is that as it is over 2 years since your admin tools were removed due to inactivity you can only regain the admin tools via an RFA. Davewild (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec) To my non-bureaucrat eye, it looks like it has been more than three years since your last edit or logged action, and more than two years since you were most-recently desysopped for inactivity: [10]. Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy inactivity, it appears that you will need to re-request adminship through WP:RFA. (A successful request there would likely be contingent on a period of renewed activity in which you demonstrate your familiarity with current Wikipedia policy, practice, and norms. Six years is a long time to be away.) It's up to the 'crats to give you the official word, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 Bureaucrat note: I'm afraid I must concur with Davewild and TenOfAllTrades; the guidelines for resysopping do not allow a return of the administrative permissions in this case (see #4). You are free to submit a fresh request for adminship at any time. –xenotalk 15:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 Bureaucrat note: I agree with xeno. A new RFA will need to be submitted. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

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

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

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

I am also glad to see they acted quickly and its about time. I wouldn't go cross-posting anything though just because of one isolated case. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a new development. The ArbCom has been doing swift desysops by motion since at least January 2010. (Craigy144 went from original AN/I discussion of his misconduct to closure of the Arbitration motion in 10 days. A good chunk of that elapsed time was the ArbCom leaving Craigy144 an opportunity to respond before finalizing the motion. Most recently, Secret was desysopped by motion in December 2014; the process took a total of 15 days from misuse of tools to motion. And that case had to be handled on the mailing list, since it involved RevDeleted information. By motion – rather than by case – is probably the biggest share of ArbCom desysoppings.)
That said, it is likely to have little effect on RfA. WT:RfA already knows that support percentage in RfA is a terrible predictor of future misconduct (the median desysopped admin scored something like 93% support on his RfA). And the "rogue admin runks amok" scenario has always been more bogeyman than reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Craigy144 had 100% support (13/0/1) in 2005 when there was hardly anybody voting at RfA, and not much opposition anyway. Dreadstar had 78.6% (55/15/1) in 2007. Secret had 75.7% (109/35/11) on his last RfA (his 11th) in 2013, and disclosed serious health issues. Judging from these three widely differing cases with their particular peculiarities, I don't think that one can establish any pattern or rule, deriving from the RfA voting stats, as to which admin will be desysopped in the future. Many others with the same or similar original RfA votes have been adminning away happily ever since... Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Inactive admins for April 2015

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

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

RobyWayne (talk · contribs) has just become active again, so there probably isn't any point in de-sysopping him now; I've removed him from the list above. Graham87 05:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done Thanks to all for their hard work. WormTT(talk) 07:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for return of the admin bit.

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Request for return of the admin bit, round 2.

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

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

Completely unrelated

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

Special:CentralAuth/Nyttend; it appears your accounts are unified. –xenotalk 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
And you can go to Special:MergeAccount to merge any outliers. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, good. Other than occasional use of those three accounts, I've basically never used accounts for anything except cross-wiki stuff like vandalism-fighting and pre-Wikidata babel link work. If any unattached accounts exist somehow, they won't matter. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Panewithholder

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User:Panewithholder
 – Nothing requiring bureaucrat action, only general admin action. ansh666 21:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to become an Administrator

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

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

Courtesy vanishing

Unresolved
 – Since global renaming, privacy-related rename requests sent via email are best handled by the stewards mailing list: stewards@wikimedia –xenotalk 14:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) discussion still ongoing, some points need clarification –xenotalk 12:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

There's always the steward/global renamers mailing list if it's a global vanishing. Andrevan@ 02:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The crat's list is still available - though the steward/global renamers lists are probably better. WormTT(talk) 07:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is good reason to keep the request off-wiki (i.e. serious privacy issues, etc), I strongly recommend emailing individuals rather than lists. In my opinion, mailing lists are a bad place for confidential information because:
  1. The lists are effectively a forwarding service that will circulate the email to the addresses of those subscribed to the list - you have no way of knowing how secure the email accounts of the list members are.
  2. The email will be stored in an archive that could be accessed by anyone who is given access to the list in the future.
I worry that we give people a false sense of security when we encourage the use of the lists. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • I quite often refer people to WP:VANISH who have put {{db-u1}} on their both their user and user talk pages, telling them to use it if blanking their talk page is not enough for them. These are not people who would know individual 'crats or stewards, or what the difference is. The instructions at VANISH are to use Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats or email wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org. If those are no longer the right addresses, we should update it. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the entire concept behind WP:VANISH has essentially been deprecated by the move to SUL. While accounts can be renamed, those renamings are all logged and publicly available, and there is no global consensus for suppression of these log entries. I'm a little fuzzy on how page moves happen following global renaming, but there would automatically be redirects made and moves logged; again, one would have to specifically request that no redirects be made (no global consensus) and the move logs suppressed (again, no global consensus). As well, I know that for many years the stewards email list did not accept any emails from non-subscribers; someone should check if that has been changed. The bottom line is that if one wants to vanish, the thing to do is scramble the password, remove the email address from the preferences, and walk away; that permanently prevents reanimation of the account. The punitive elements of the current policy (paraphrased, "if you come back, we're going to restore everything anyway") has never been a net positive.

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

  • A common type of would-be vanisher is someone who has come here thinking this is a social-networking site, seen his vanity articles and glowing user-pages about himself deleted, and has finally got the message, or who engaged in silly vandalism under his real name years ago when young. He (it's usually he) doesn't plan to come back, but would like to be sure that searches on his name don't turn up a record of his youthful indiscretions or unsuccessful self-promotion. I think that's the sort of case WP:VANISH was designed for. Can we now do nothing for him? JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think English Wikipedia can do it by itself anymore; however, I notice that there's a language link to similar processes for many of the larger Wikipedias on WP:VANISH, so there's probably a reasonable chance that some sort of global process can be developed. I'm not in a position to make a lot of cross-language comparisons to the relevant policies elsewhere right at the moment, so there may be some significant variances in how a similar process is used elsewhere. Risker (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Risker's point about VANISHed accounts being easy to track due to log entries, page moves, etc. -- I have not yet come across an enwiki account that had gone through the normal VANISH process for which I wasn't able to precisely trace the original account name in a manner of minutes, and I've never been able to view suppressed content. The process has always seemed like less-than-it-promises. Page move logs, signed edits, talk page history -- there's always a way to trace someone for those curious enough to try, because suppressing everything (even RevDel'ing) isn't feasible or realistic. If that was the end result locally on enwiki, I cannot imagine that a global process will accomplish anything better. The only aspect of VANISHing that makes sense is renaming the account to something other than its original name (and not keeping old-name-redirects) for reasons of search indexing and an appearance of at-a-glance privacy against those who won't go looking behind the curtains. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I agree that the rename portion of a 'courtesy vanish' would be be best handled by stewards@wikimedia if the requesting does not wish to file at the onwiki venues. –xenotalk 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) this might not actually be true if they don't have an "EmailUser" shortcut for verification. –xenotalk 12:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rschen7754 and Xeno, that is simple and clear and makes sense. When I get a chance I'll tweak the advice at WP:VANISH. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Wording change

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

I'm sorry, but the new wording is misleading. Stewards are not the only ones who can change usernames, and many of the 'crats here are also global renamers. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable for people to send a request to the 'crat mailing list as there are several of us there who handle such requests. Your reversal of my edits on Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing are not helpful and violate WP:DISPUTE. Once your changes were reverted, you should have come here for further discussion rather than edit warring and reverting my perfectly valid and accurate edits. You are not a global renamer as far as I am aware, so you do not know what you are talking about here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I am aware of the fact most stewards have global rename rights. However, I fail to see how telling people to contact a steward to request this (which is the conclusion of the thread, as mentioned in the"resolved header above) is misleading. Just because I'm not a global renamer does not mean I don't understand how stuff works - I'm not a checkuser, for example, but I've got a good idea how that all works. Mdann52 (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not delete my comments again. Two days of a a little bit of back-and-forth doesn't equal consensus. And Stewards don't have time to handle all vanishing requests; that's why there are global renamers, who handle the vast majority of the requests. We don't need to be swamping them with all the emailed requests and everything that used to be posted at CHUS. This has been discussed by the global renamers already, and the general consensus there is for people to make the initial requests on their home wikis by 'crats who are also global renamers (unless there aren't any on that wiki) and only contact the stewards if it's something which can't be handled by the global renamers. That's why I made the wording changes I did. It still allows them to contact the stewards if they feel they must, but directs all regular vanishing requests to the same place as always, where we are doing a perfectly fine job of keeping up with those requests. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 12:33 am, Today (UTC−6)
That was accidental (it appears to have been caused by an edit conflict, mobile tends not to handle them too well). Considering only 9 users have global renamer here, so the vast majority of crats couldn't act on a request is also a factor, however there was a discussion above with no opposition to the proposal, that's what I based the request on. I do think there should be a wider discussion on courtesy vanishing, and whether it is still a useful tool to have, or whether it should be stopped on here. However, it does seem that more steward are willing and able to deal with these then locally, so it does seem to make sense to direct them towards them. An RfC into this may make sense, however I don't see it getting much participation. Mdann52 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we need an RfC for something which already has a process which is working just fine. Why do we need to fix something which isn't broken? The modifications I made clarified things enough given the new process and without sending everyone to the stewards for help which doesn't require or even benefit from having a steward do it in most cases. That's what global renamers are for: to handle renaming requests, including vanishing requests, and in almost every case we can handle the request. There are enough of us here to handle the number of requests received here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I might have concluded too soon that the steward queue is best for this; do they even have an "EmailUser" shortcut for emailing? If not how are they going to verify the request was sent by the target user? –xenotalk 12:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I suppose one could be set up. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There was discussion about this a while ago, ping User:Ajraddatz --Rschen7754 16:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I remember it being agreed that stewards could fill such requests. We had one request for vanishing on the stewards queue yesterday with no accompanying proof that it was the user, so if we were to do that a "stewards" account with the email directing to the OTRS queue would be needed. To the best of my knowledge, we weren't doing anything more than renaming for vanishing, so any global renamer could do it (though I agree with you above that publishing the name of a user who wants to disappear to 100+ people isn't a good idea). If enwiki has enough bureaucrats that are also global renamers, then these requests could really be handled by local crats, and any cases requiring oversight could be directed to stewards / local oversighters depending on the case. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
And that's exactly what we've been doing. People send the requests to the crat mailing list (which has (maybe) 15-20 people on it), and we'll forward them to oversight and/or stewards if needed (it almost never is needed). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, but is it appropriate for bureaucrats (who are not identified) to be handling information that might need to be oversighted? --Rschen7754 00:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
If the information is already publicly available, then it doesn't really matter. We always forward any such issues to oversight for assistance, if needed. And there are some of us (me, for instance) who are already identified to the WFM due to handling OTRS issues, checkuser/oversight, and/or steward responsibilities, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best for the page to direct users to two venues, bureaucrats if there is no suppressible information involved and stewards if there is? Trying to explain what that is might be a nightmare, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what I did before Mdann52 changed it back. You can see the version I created here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it back to your version while keeping some of the global info and providing the global rename queue as another option. I'm not sure if I am allowed to do that, so please change it as necessary. I think that directing to local bureaucrats will work for now, anyway. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How about a completely separate point (but appropriate for this venue) -- I was under the impression 'crats (like OS and CUs and Stewards) were required to identify to the foundation. I assume some of them are anyways (I am, and I'm just an admin), but Rschen's post above made me realize there was no obligation for them to. Was this changed at some point, or was I just wrong? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Bureaucrats have never been required to identify to the Foundation. –xenotalk 01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Special:GlobalRenameRequest

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

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

I want to be someone

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

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

Q. re: WP:INACTIVITY

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

When processing the inactivity requests, I don't believe the processing bureaucrat usually updates userpages. I believe other users who assist with this process are doing so, though. –xenotalk 14:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I've never updated a userpage. The admin template includes a "check" button for a reason :) WormTT(talk) 07:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never done that. Having that on one's page doesn't make them an admin, however, and people can easily find out if they are really an admin. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I usually do update the userpages (e.g. [11], [12]) but it sounds as if I might be in the minority. WJBscribe (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I may have at one time, but I found that not all admins even had one of those templates on their page, so I think I stopped checking the userpage due to lack of results. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Cleanup on aisle 9 please

Resolved

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

Requests to hide abusive usernames should be sent to the Wikipedia:Oversight team / special:EmailUser/Oversight. –xenotalk 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll make a note of that, Xeno. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Xeno and Drmies: From an Oversight perspective, it's also sometimes better just to send it to the stewards' mailing list for global lock and suppression since all usernames are global now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Please feel free to update the advice in the Front matter if that is now the case. –xenotalk 11:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I should clarify that that was personal opinion as an Oversighter. I'll have a chat with the team and see what they think. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Whaddayaknow--I never saw that sentence (in the front matter) until now. No wonder I get such mediocre evaluations. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Reports bot

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

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

Rather serious rename bug

Unresolved
 – Now being discussed at phabricator:T97536. –xenotalk 15:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved from user talk:xeno; was Question about cleanup following user rename

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

It's weird; I can't find any deleted history. Not sure why those circular redirects were created. –xenotalk 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The user moved the talk page from Percy to Swag while requesting the rename, moving the history to Swag and leaving a redirect at Percy. Then, when Xeno renamed, it moved Percy over Swag -- which means, moved the redirect revision at Percy over the existing history at Swag, and left a "new" redirect at Percy. The result is that both pages are redirects to Swag. The bug is that the auto pagemove done during renaming "crushed" the existing history at Swag -- it should be in "deleted revisions" if moved normally, but it isn't. I wonder if that happens everytime you rename a user and the userpages at the new name have histories -- they become crushed instead of deleted. Is this something you have encountered before? Is there a fix (restoring from database or whatnot)? This sounds like something that could be tested using dummies, and if it does happen everytime, it is definitely something that needs to be taken into account when renaming (histories at userpages of target username) -- to avoid being crushed, they may need to be "moved out of the way" and histmerged back in after the rename is done. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think such a thing was possible, certainly sounds buggy. @Amalthea: any idea about this? –xenotalk
I'll ask Graham87 about it too -- he's probably the user with the deepest knowledge about page histories. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Salvidrim: I have absolutely no idea where the page history went, either. Perhaps this should be taken to Phabricator? Graham87 07:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Inactive admins for May 2015

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

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

Should we start directing users to Special:GlobalRenameRequest?

Unresolved
 – We are now pointing users to this facility; I've asked for some engineering help on phabricator:T96957 which is the reason for the unresolved tag. (Users need to know why requests are being rejected.) –xenotalk 14:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see why not if the process is ready, however I share xeno's concerns about loss of local control over target usernames. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the exact text of the rejection e-mail is:
The request to rename "[uname]" to "[target uname]" could not be completed.
For more information, please visit this help page: m:Help:Unified login#Frequently asked questions. To discuss your rename request, you can post on this page: m:Talk:Steward requests/Username changes. You must still log in to your current account name first.
So it does direct users to the proper venue on Meta for further discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought it conveyed a reason back to the user. And if the user has no email? –xenotalk 17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You have to provide an e-mail with the rename request itself. If you look at SRUC's talk page, plenty of users are complaining about being declined without apparent or explained reason. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Related to this topic, how should WP:ACC requests for names that where renamed/moved by SULF be resolved? Should they be sent to checkuser to see if the account that got the global user that got the username is actually active? Should they be sent to Special:GlobalRenameRequest? I just came across my first one of these today where a name being requested was "available" according to enwp but the previous user at that name was moved to ...~enwiki so it wasn't really available. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Xeno: ACC and OTRS is scrambling to figure out how to handle these at their respective departments, is there any documentation ? maybe on Meta explaining what this process is/about. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Any name taken on any project should no longer be considered "available" locally; all usernames must be unique globally. If a user wants to petition to take over the name and it exists on a project other than enwiki they will need to petition at m:SRUC (if only enwiki account exists, they can go to WP:USURP still). If I misunderstood the question, please clarify. –xenotalk 22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Xeno:@Technical 13: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Technical 13 was referring to the local notice "This account is not registered," which does still show up if the global account has never visited the wiki while logged in. There is a difference between "This account is not registered" and "This account is available," so always take a moment to swing by Special:CentralAuth to check global registration. It's available on every wiki. CheckUser is not needed, you can see if an account is "active" by checking contributions. However, "active" is a highly subjective definition that varies wildly from wiki to wiki, so it's not generally considered a criterion in renaming. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF): Perhaps; where does that notice display? –xenotalk 20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's at MediaWiki:Userpage-userdoesnotexist-view. You see it when you check a userpage for a non-existent local account, i.e. User:Zhou, which for now only exists on enwikibooks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah right, Thanks. Yes, definitely any advice on checking whether a username is available should refer to Special:CentralAuth for checking. –xenotalk 22:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Support and I'd also suggest we seriously review WP:RTV too. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Other Wikimedia projects will direct to this space, so now anyone can get a new name for English Wikipedia on any Wikimedia project. Review over usernames on English Wikipedia can still occur, as users could still be blocked for having an inappropriate userrname here. Now the difference is that the review has to happen after names are granted, and not preliminary to the execution of the rename.
I hardly think this can be opposed. Practically all channels will point to this process for renaming accounts so it is inevitable that English Wikipedia must point there eventually. It would be best to adapt to this by changing local guidelines to accommodate this new system.
So far as I know, there has never been opposition to having SUL anyway, so I think everyone who had an opinion on the matter was anticipating that this would happen anyway. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added the option to the main changing username landing page: [15]. Users are already filing requests there (even unrelated to the unification) anyway. The language of Special:GlobalRenameRequest needs to be updated to indicate that global renames as well as Stewards have access to the queue and data. –xenotalk 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot flag for User:B-bot

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_31&oldid=1224600257"