Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:37, 14 June 2013

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

I need a bot flag now

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

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

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

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

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

Question about renaming and usurping

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting re-sysop after inactivity for Satori Son

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting resysop

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

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

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

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

User:fl

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

Hey,

Can I grab my admin perms back?

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

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

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

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

Desysop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desysop

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

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

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

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

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

Resysop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting resysop, or intentions thereof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desysop request

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

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

Resysop request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moe... it's sarcasm. Normally you're one of the more clueful ones around here. — PinkAmpers& 13:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Snow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unified Login (User:Mschwerin)

Hi,

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

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

 Done MBisanz 00:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators/2013#May 2013

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

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

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

 Done MBisanz 00:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove bot flag

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

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

Request for Resysop

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overdue RFA closure

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

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

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

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

Bureaucrats will lose a right (renames)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing tools are given to all users, including IPs. Snowolf 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing obvious RfAs/RfBs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUL Finalization Delay

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate RFA question

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.

Hi, what is the opinion here of question #9 in this RFA? I almost felt like removing it but the candidate already answered it. It seems not an appropriate question to ask. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's inappropriate, but as you say, the candidate was willing to answer it, so there's probably not anything to be done at this point. I suspect other RfA candidates will respectfully decline to answer the question should it be asked again. 28bytes (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave my 2¢. Since when does a candidate's political views become an issue in a RfA ? Mlpearc (powwow) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I see it in a future RfA I'll remove it. That's just asking for trouble. Wizardman 17:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That might be helpful since he is planning to ask it in every RFA from now on. See here Garion96 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The asker of the questioned should be sanctioned. Basket _Feudalist 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should I be sanctioned for asking for transparency? There is at least one other user who is for admins, and potential admins, to display their "political/social beliefs". We can discuss the question, and perhaps it can be improved, but I do not see the need to be punished for asking a question. If I am punished/sanctioned for asking questions, what does that say about those who oversee our community?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. It's an unscientific, totally subjective uncontrolled 'test'. And WP's integrity and independence is going to be nailed to the wall as a result. And talk about P -O- V-! Basket _Feudalist 18:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think sanctions are appropriate, but neither was that question. It smacks of McCarthyism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I agree that where there is no ostensible grounds to discuss it, e.g. a possibly contentious userbox already on the candidate's page, such a question is beyond the scope of RFX, and I would endorse its removal had it not already been answered. But there is no need to sanction the asker. That would be purely punitive. WilliamH (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A mildly Reaganesque solution the asker would doubtless agree with LOL Basket _Feudalist 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I also agree that the question was inappropriate but that emphasizes one of the many flaws in the RFA system. That isn't my main concern though, I am more concerned about the tone and attitude being displayed in the comments. It seems that they can say anything that wany to the nominee but if the nominee responds with anything they are pointy, defensive, battleground mentality, etc. I would suggest that it would be greatly beneficial to have some kind of RFA committe like AUSC or teh FA process that overseeas the RFA process and keeps the process civil. With all that said its apparent that this ain't going to pass so if someone wants to close it feel free. I'll just have to try again in a few months if I don't get banned first by those that should be banned but are in the positions of power. It just means I won't be able to help out and the backlogs will continue to grow in areas where I would be glad and willing to help out. Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It would be McCarthyism if I was asking if someone is a communist, then publically attack the individual. I did nothing of the sort, nor does the question state it. I ask for a pledge for the subject of an RfA to recuse themselves if they have a political bias or a conflict of interest that may impact their use of admin tools in those situations. How is that not appropriate?

I can be called names all day long, but that doesn't make those who support me being sanctioned for asking questions any more right.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was McCarthyism, I said it smacks of it, putting someone on the stand and making them declare their political affiliation. That is inappropriate at RfA, and a consensus clearly thinks so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@RCLC, you asked for more than the pledges: you also asked Kumioko to take a test on another wweb site and to disclose the results in public. IMHO, that's intrusive. Kumioko commented later: "... if I didn't answer I would have gotten opposes for not answering the questions so either way I'm screwed". That's an unfair position to put someone in.. --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I ask the question for transparency of the subject of the RfA, is that not needed?

While the majority of editors appear to be opposed to asking such question(s), how will we know if an admin is using the tools with a political bent, if we do not know what their political views are, or are we to guess based on their edits? Same can be said about use of admin tools with a COI? We see this for a non-admin reported outside of Misplaced Pages, and again when the issue was resolved. If Misplaced Pages is to be a trustworthy source, we need to ensure that we keep to our WP:5P and asking for transparency in our leadership, the Admins, I think is a benefit rather than something to be demonized.

So those who oppose the question, what level of transparency should we ask of our Admin corps? As I pointed out earlier, one other editor agrees with the increased transparency; are we wrong to want that?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your question presupposes that someone who has political views in the off-wiki world will attempt to abusively enforce those political views on-Wiki with their tools. Absent any evidence of abusive behavior, this question presumes guilt and assumes bad faith.

If an administrator evidently misuses the tools with a specific political bent, either left or right, that should be dealt with as an abuse of the tools. The motivation is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are wrong to demand the political view of a candidate or admin. It will only create more division. Many admins or candidates likely have political views opposite of mine, we have left and right wing admins here. I don't care about the political views of a candidate when I comment in a RFA. I base my judgments on their edits. Garion96 (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because myself, or someone else, asks an admin candidate a question doesn't meant that they are required to answer. Also given the multiple sentences in the question, a candidate can sidestep it entirely and not state their want to not take the test. This is true of all my questions.

In the end, I hope others agree, that we should not punish/sanction editors for asking questions at RfA. If anything we the community should want more people to ask questions at RfA, and more people involved in RfA, it is after all !voting for our leadership in this community, and the more that are involved, the more representative the leadership is of our community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the question. In this case, this one time, no. That doesn't mean it was appropriate, and if you made it a habit of it, it would be disruptive, just as asking an admin a question that you know they won't answer or shouldn't answer is disruptive. I think the best thing for you to take from this is that everyone is allowed to make a mistake every now and then. For what it is worth, some of the best "leadership" around here comes from editors without the admin bit. The admin tools don't make you a leader, they makes you a janitor. Leadership isn't born through the flip of a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So does this mean that all questions at RfA need to be preapproved? Why would asking for transparency be disruptive? Would it be wrong to ask prospective admins what conflict of interests they have, or to volunteer their political opinions?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

COI? Fine to ask. In terms of adminship, political leanings are irrelevant as religion, or at least they should be. Fwiw, I took that "test", and found it to be a bit US-focused, e.g. a question on abortion, a subject long since since settled in most of Europe. Hillbillyholiday 21:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not wrong to ask "do you have any conflicts of interest" or "what are the/any areas in which you might recuse yourself" because those are directly related to the use of the tools. The two sentences that ended with question marks ("Do you pledge to use the admin tools without your political opinions effecting their usage? Do you pledge to recuse yourself from areas where Admin actions are required in situations where you may have a conflict of interest?") were quite appropriate, albeit easy to answer, it was the test that's an issue. There is nothing a user could say that should affect the RfA when asked their politics or religion, so it shouldn't be asked. Similar to a job interview - nobody asks your religion because taking it into account is not an option. If your goal is COI ask about COI. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not only is the question inappropriate, but it's also another clear example of exactly what's wrong with the system and why users of the right calibre are reluctant to run for adminship. Clean up the voting and the questions, and there won't be a need for any radical changes to the process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And that someone has to ask means the candidate's biases aren't so obvious as to be a concern, but the person asking has a bias and will only support those that have the same political views as them, or they wouldn't be asking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Right. And that stuff about transparency is a strawman. Transparency is what is required of actions and of governance in general. For example, clear and thorough close rationales for contentious issues give transparency. Transparency doesn't mean we need to know the private views of individuals. If their political views, then why not their religious views, their view on issues like abortion, their sexuality, their nationality (since national and regional POV-pushing are a major problem here) etc, etc. It's the thin end of a wedge whose thick end is outing. --Stfg (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not entirely agree with Kudpung above. I do agree that we need to cleanup the voting and question but I do not think that will eliminate the need for RFA reform. Its like putting steaksauce on a hotdog, at the end of the day its still a weiner!Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Kumioko, that is a flagrant personal attack on the hot dog, the staple of good American ball games and cookouts everywhere; I expect you to retract it, andyour immediate resignation will be accepted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I guess your right, it was a pretty harsh criticism of one of the staples of American culture. My apologies. :-)Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

but the person asking has a bias and will only support those that have the same political views as them, or they wouldn't be asking.

Is the admin trying to accuse me of something? If so I find it abhorrent. I have voted support for Admin Candidates who I know whom I do not have my same political opinions in the past, please tell me when at RfA I have voted against someone because of their political opinions.

I will modify the question, to ask for a COI statement. I appreciate the criticism (some of it being more constructive than others), but I still find it appalling that by asking for transparency that others want to punish/sanction me. Such an action is the type of thing IMHO that drives productive editors away. We should not seek to punish/sanction those who are acting in what they believe is in the best interest of the project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The question was probably posed without any malice aforethought and I doubt whether we're making RightCow a scapegoat for everything that's wrong with RfA, but as one who has suffered the process a couple of times, you are certainly aware of what the the problems are. I still strongly maintain the stance that I have held for several years that the guidelines for voting need to be more strongly adhered to, and by intervention if necessary. For anyone who is interested, I became interested in RfA issues long before I even dreamed of becoming an admin. Why? because I was grossly offended by some admin behaviour and I wanted to find out how people here got to become sysops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Only one editor proposed sanctions. I don't see anyone else wanting them. --Stfg (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What is needed is a clearer understanding of what is appropriate and what is not - kind of 'look before you leap'. Sanctions are not required unless a user regularly causes drama at RfA and does not respond to requests not to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

By "causing drama" do you mean opposing? Eric Corbett 23:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not, and you know it perfectly well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't. It's long seemed to me that this is all about eliminating opposition, but whatever. Eric Corbett 01:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You do, and to claim otherwise is either disingenuous or you have a very short memory. I can provide some diffs - including your unprovoked PA and snide comments at WP:RFA2011 and elsewhere on this very topic long after I refrained from discussing anything with you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Please do not bite the newcomers Eric has only been with us a very short while. Perhaps you were referring to mean ol' Mr. Malleus below. -- Hillbillyholiday 03:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Section break

(edit conflict) I've been in your position Kumioko, so I know how shitty it feels. Your RfA clearly isn't going to pass, and all that's likely to happen from now on is that there will be more and more opposers adding to the ill will that's already built up. I don't see that as being in any way helpful to you, or likely to add to your mental well-being, so I think a withdrawal would be the right thing to do now. Doesn't mean that one day you might not get the user rights you feel you need, just not this time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Act Like A Man, I'm surprised that you scored so highly on the Libertarian front, when you feel a sanction is in order here. -- Hillbillyholiday 19:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too; still, here we are. Those who sleep with dogs, will rise with fleas, perhaps Basket _Feudalist 19:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't mind the opposes, really. It hurt the first couple times but this third one actually didn't bother me. What I don't like are the repeated vandalisms of my RFA and the obviously inappropriate comments directed at me which no one cares about addressing and which I as a candidate am not allowed to respond to apparently. Because I am a 40 year old big fat meany head, lol. It's ok though. The result is what I expected. Its also not going to change my desire to change the culture here. If I shake things up a little then that's fine but in the end if Misplaced Pages fails it won't be because I didn't try and dislodge all the entrenched power hogs. It will be because those power hogs and POV pushers were more interested in gaining and keeping power than building an encyclopedia. Kumioko (talk)

More likely, the failure of Misplaced Pages will come when a sufficient number of good contributors are driven away by the turmoil from accommodating people who imagine their views to be so flawless that hints to give it a rest are ignored. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you referring to me I made a mistake...once...back in the summer of '90. :-) Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) The correct response by a candidate asked any question beginning with the words "Would you go and take a test" is generally along the lines of "No, I Don't Wanna Do Dat". Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your probably right. At the time I figured someone would just say I wasn't answering the questions. It wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway so in the end it don't really matter. Kumioko (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have to ask someone "What is your political party?" then obviously their politics haven't interfered in their ability to be neutral, rendering the question meaningless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a very good point. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just as it should be for a administrative candidate. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well we all know for next time it comes up. We can just delete it. I think we can all agree my RFA never really had a shot but at least some good has come out of it if we can agree that questions like this should be removed without hesitation. Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was indeed hopeless, as would mine have been, we've been too noisy. What we need to focus on is unbundling. Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Would that help you to obtain some tools that you need? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah the RFA process is a hopeless mess. Its easy to get RFA if you vote on the side that's winning (to increase your %'s), don't make waves, never call out an admin for violating the rules (because they are infallible of course and the rules don't apply anyway). Besides getting the tools the RFA process is a good meter for how an editor is generally looked upon in the community. It of course draws out the worst in everyone but at the same time you can gather a lot of good intel on various aspects of community behavior. Who thinks your a shitbag, who thinks your a good editor, who thinks X or Y, and even more it also shows who the good and bad admins are. Did they add smear comments or did they try and keep people civil. Did they provide useful feedback or just troll the discussion with snide comments and attacks. I personally got a lot out of this RFA in regards to how the community feels about me as an editor and as a potential admin. I also learned a lot more about what traits people are looking for in an admin and how admins are viewed within the community. I find it rather ironic that so many admins violate the criteria that prevent people these days from getting the tools. Which in addition to unbundling shows me that an admin should have term limits. Maybe 2 or 3 years. Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the wrong question Demiurge1000. Nobody needs the tools, but Misplaced Pages needs someone to have them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It would sure help me. I only need like 4 of them but I have to get the whole damn set to be able to get the ones I need/want. I shouldn't have to take a knee and kiss the ring of some admin just to pull more than 25000 articles into AWB. Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very sad that some people obsess over this so much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol, everyone needs a hobby...this is cheaper than collecting comic books...or ex wives. Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need more users to have some tools, just as we need more non-admin closing RfCs and merge discussions. The less binary the system is, the better people get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about RTV

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

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

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

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

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

Bot deflagging proposal

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

Asking back the tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Availability note

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

WP:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013

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

Request admin bit back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bot Flag Removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like ·addshore· 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I will try and take a look :) ·addshore· 09:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin bit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for resysoping

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators/2013#June 2013

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

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

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

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

Bureaucrat views RFA talk-page discussion as play and entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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