Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:29, 21 January 2010

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

It is 15:44:02 on December 25, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Username changes and accounts on other wikis

Hi there. I'm a bit confused when it comes to clerking WP:CHU at the moment, since different crats seem to have a different approach to renames when accounts on other wikis are involved. The case I am referring to are renames that involved renaming a user here to a name that is already taken on other projects but where no SUL account exists. For example, on Misplaced Pages:Changing_username#Cipher_2009_.E2.86.92_Cipher_.2710, Avi says that the user could usurp the account Cipher on this wiki, while Will declines a request at Misplaced Pages:Changing_username/Usurpations#Elizabeth_Bathory_.E2.86.92_Luna because the user with the strongest claim to the SUL account would be forced to give it up (and he says that SUL will be enabled to be automatic?) then. So I wonder: Should we tell users requesting a name that is already taken on other projects but where no SUL account exists that this is not possible or that it's possible or that it's only possible if there are no edits on any project? I sympathize with the first option personally, but I just thought there should be a general guideline for those cases. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is another such request (currently active) at Misplaced Pages:Changing_username/Usurpations#Speedoguy_.E2.86.92_Speedo. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And Sławomir Biały2 → Slawek for that matter. Were it up to me alone, I would decline those requests, but I will wait and see if a consensus otherwise emerges from this discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I believe we all concur that we want the user with the strongest claim to the SUL to retain it. When it comes to Cipher, the user trying to usurrp Cipher has more, and more recent, edits on EnWiki than the other users, so I feel that they have the stronger right. I have not checked the Luna claim, but it is likely that the other editor has more, and more recent, edits on their home wiki which would forestall the usurpation here. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would point out is that bureaucrats exercise discretion individually when granting or declining renames, which means we won't always be singing from the same hymm sheet. That said, it's probably best if our approach doesn't differ too much. I don't tend to review in detail the instances where bureaucrats have granted/refused renames (except perhaps for very new crats to offer advice) and I suspect others don't either. You're therefore in a better place than we are to notice if we're being inconsistent, as you have here.
I would decline a request by any enwiki user to usurp User:Cipher, regardless of the number of edits they have made or recentness of either account's edits, as I did with Luna. Performing such a rename can alter which account is recognised by the software as the "home wiki" of an account. The effect of renaming an enwiki user with many more edits than the current "home wiki" account is to displace that user's right to create the global account. If the person renamed creates a global account, the previous "home wiki" user will not be able to create any more accounts with that name.
The English wikipedia community has appointed me to be a bureaucrat, which allows me to rename users on this project. Our local policy even allows me to rename enwiki accounts without GFDL significant contributions to allow other users to use them. But no other project has appointed me as a bureaucrat. I am therefore very reluctant to take an action on this wiki that affects a user on another project in this way. If across all wikis, a username is taken but has zero (or no significant) contributions, I tend to be OK with the rename. I am not however happy with determining that an active enwiki user with 10,000 contributions is worth more than a frwiki user with 100 who no longer edits. Given that enwiki often has editors with higher numbers of contributions than its sister project, it would seem to me to allow people to muzzle in on popular names all too easily.
I also see little point in creating new SUL conflicts that will need to be resolved later - there are far too many as it is. Renames to a particular chosen name are never necessary. They are something which someone way want and which may make them happier, but I do not think rename requests should be granted where deterimentally effect a good faith user on another project, even if their contributions have been few and they are no longer active.
Back in July 2008, I noted this issue and proposed on this noticeboard that "Unless the name has zero edits (or zero non-trivial edits) across all projects, I do not think we should consider it available to users here." Those who participated in that discussion agreed with this approach and I presumed that it continued to be taken by other crats. I am not aware of any more recent discussion about these issues since then but, if consensus may have changed, they may warrant renewed discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, I agree we need a new discussion and to hammer out what we should or should not do. I'd like to ask any passing stewards to drop in as well, as they deal with multiple wikis more than we do. As an aside, please see meta:Help:Unified login#Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account?. -- Avi (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly on the same page. I think I'm slightly more lenient; if a user on another project with, say, 50 edits hasn't edited in a number of years, I'd consider passing the rename. It all depends on individual circumstance. —Anonymous Dissident 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm with AD here. I'll generally not permit, but am prepared to be flexible, depending on circumstances, another being that there are two or three accounts of the same name, none of which have more than a few edits. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I remain very uncomfortable with appointing myself judge of the worth of a user on another project who has made 50 edits and is not currently active. For me, the cost of displacing a good faith user outweighs the happiness performing a rename might give the enwiki user who wants to be renamed. If consensus is now against me, I will cease to decline these requests, but I am not willing to perform them. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is against you; as you say, we're able to exercise discretion, so it's not crucial we're all on exactly the same page. I for one agree with what you're saying, in effect. And, I don't think I'd pass the same rename if a frivolous reason were given. —Anonymous Dissident 01:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, you noted on Elizabeth Bathory's request that the devs want to turn on SUL to be automatic? Is this correct and if so, what's the status on it? Will they force a rename for everyone not having the SUL account? I think that should be taken into consideration when discussing this question. Regards SoWhy 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's something that's been discussed on and off. Last I heard about this, it was suggested that SUL would ultimately be enabled automatically, with accounts that lost out being automatically renamed to something like User:Foo@enwiki, making way for the global rights holder for User:Foo. I don't know if that's still the plan or when this will happen. It may take a long time, but then again a lot of the current problems have arisen because we didn't really believe SUL would happen and then suddenly it did. The whole point of SUL is only having one user per name across all projects. Anything that creates a situation with several people holding the same name across different projects is likely to be only a temporary solution to what we're considering. Of course, sometimes temporary ends up being a long time. WJBscribe (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. (by Avi who said "any passing stewards" :) and directly on my talk by WJBScribe, thanks for the heads up!) If I understand the question to be whether en:wp 'crats should decline renames if the target is a name used (extensively? at least somewhat) on other wikis even if that name has not yet been SUL'ed, then I think I agree with WJBScribe (again if I correctly understand his position)... that the right approach is to decline it. There is more to WMF than just keeping en:wp users happy.

Perhaps if SUL became automatic this would not arise, but avoidance of SUL problems (in advance) seems goodness. While I think 'crat discretion is a good thing, I think in this case it might be a good idea for the 'crats to reach consensus on this matter and then self enforce this as a policy, for the sake of consistency. In fact I thought this WAS policy already. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar, thank you for dropping by! Firstly, each and every case has to be judged individually, in my opinion, depending on how the name is used throughout the wikiverse. Here, the specific case in question is an active EnWiki user wanting to usurp an unused EnWiki name for which no SUL exists but for which there is a separate frwiki and ruwiki user, one of which has not edited since 2008, and the other since 2006. The EnWiki user is the most active of any, and I have placed a link on both the frwiki and ruwiki pages. If the EnWiki user had the SUL, he would easily have the high ground to usurp the SUL wikimedia-wide due to activity. Therefore, I think that if the user has the right to usurp the name on EnWiki, and then wants to create the SUL, that is preferable. It is not making EnWiki users happy, it is making the most active wikiMedian wanting this name happy. We're happy to refuse usurpations when other project users have first claim; here I believe the EnWiki user has the best claim. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. In this particular case I agree that the en:wp user may well have the "best" claim (and I would trust the judgment of the crats who had looked at this in more detail about whose claim is "best") but my point still stands, I would be conservative and not grant. There is a gray area where user X may have the "best" claim, but "not by much". Where do you draw the line? How much "better" does the "best" claim need to be before it's open and shut? 2008 is not that long ago (in this example.. that is the last edit date of the user that might have the second best claim). What if it was Jan 2008, or June 2008, or Dec 2008? What if it was June 2009? What if it was Dec 2009? Some one of those examples, surely, veers into the gray area, or beyond. Just leaving it to "judgment" is going to result in hard feelings sooner or later, especially if the judgment call would differ from one crat to the next, as appears to be the case here. It may be better to formulate crisp policy, and be conservative in that formulation, and then stick to it. Meta may or may not be a guide, the policy there for crosswiki usurpation is very conservative, IIRC. Which may be for the best.... let everyone rename their userids to be unique. (easy for me to say, I got there first with Lar which is not necessarily all that unique a name although it's not as bad as David, Michael, Susan, etc) ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is to be new guidance, I'd like to highlight the option I took (Speedoguy → Speedo). In my case several different non-English accounts had been minimally active (so no complete SUL would ever be likely) and as the Spanish account was the most used I took the initiative and left a note on the user's page in Spanish and English asking if they were interested in the English account. After 7 days it seemed reasonable to assume tacit consent. Perhaps this option for similar scenarios may be recommended, particularly if the requester is prepared to do the spade-work and potentially eased by having a standard multi-language notice template to add to the relevant same-name accounts? Speedo (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I left messages on the Cipher ruwiki and Cipher frwiki on Sunday; likely they aren't even the same person, but I cannot be sure. -- Avi (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New accounts

Am I right in thinking that mediawiki software will permit someone to create a new account as User:Foo on en: even if someone has five active User:Foo accounts on different wikis, each of which has thousands of edits, but they've not yet unified their account? --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And were that new user to then make more edits than the other users with that name, they would become able to create a global account. WJBscribe (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm not sure why anyone would be bothered that a Crat would carefully and occasionally grant an account name with SUL issues, where the circumstances looked right, when that's set against masses of new accounts being (no doubt) created by new users each week with no checks and balances whatsoever. I'm therefore happy to continue occasionally allowing an experienced user to change to an en: name that has a de: equivalent with 3 edits, all made in 2005. Especially if the user is happy to understand that they may not be able to usurp the de: account. And I'm happy to continue to do this until mediawiki prevents new accounts from clashing with SUL unregistered accounts, as it'd be daft not to do so. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/alexsautographs

I think it's about to snow soon. Anyone want to close it? (I would but I voted). ~DC _{Talk To Me} 08:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the nom-statement and the answers to the questions, it's clearly a joke nomination at best, it could probably be deleted with no complaints. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 08:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi all, my old account is User:Ta bu shi da yu. However, while I retired from Misplaced Pages some time ago, I never resigned my adminship as there was never a problem with my adminship conduct. However, I have since come out of retirement, so I was wondering if I could have the admin rights transferred from Ta bu shi da yu to Tbsdy lives?

Alternatively, I would be happy to ask for this on WP:RFA, however I believe that there is precedent to transfer admin rights from one account to another.

I'm posting this here as I'm in a bit of quandry on what to do, and I'd like some feedback from the wider admin community. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to ask at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. There's nothing we can do here, but I don't see a problem Rodhullandemu 00:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go to m:SRP and request the old account be desysopped, I would be able to re-sysop the new accounts. The prior linkage between the two accounts should be sufficient evidence for the stewards (also the fact the real life identity of the prior account was known and corresponds to you would be sufficient). MBisanz 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers folks, you're correct, I should have posted here. Good advise, I'll post a message. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rights removed from the first account, MBisanz. Please update m:SRP when done? Kylu (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to post a response at AN, but the thread was removed while I was typing. As a non-admin I find this "adminship by the back door" unacceptable. Retiring or resigning should mean the same on Misplaced Pages as it does anywhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand, however my thoughts have been that my prior experience and contributions to Misplaced Pages would be enough to have the adminship rights transferred. Possibly others may not agree, which is fine - if enough people object then I'll resubmit to RFA. My reason for retiring a few years ago was that there was a lot going on in my life (got married, had a child, work extemely busy) and I was burning out. It was never about conduct or any real disagreements with Misplaced Pages itself (I had the odd grumble, but everyone else does too!). - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? If there were no issues with the adminship, requiring reconfirmation seems to me to be supremely pointless and a waste of everybody's time. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, yep, as long as we're assured the two users are one-and-the-same, and that resignation from the previous account was non-controversial, there seems little issue here to complain. However, I would hope that Tbdsy lives would be open enough to perhaps a notice on his/her talkpage stating his previous existence here on Misplaced Pages, unless there are extraneous circumstances preventing him/her from wishing to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... my user page says that "I used to be Ta bu shi da yu before I scrambled my password." and my signatures says who I used to be. However, I've made the following edit to the other account's user page, so there can be no confusion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I don't believe this is really a back door situation. TBSDY is being quite open about his former account, which still has admin rights. This is just a switch from one name to another. Even I find this completely uncontroversial. Majorly talk 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So why can't he use his previous account? DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, he scrambled the password. Not sure why every re-sysop has to turn into a meta-debate... –Juliancolton |  00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If eveer re-sysop is turning into a meta-debate, is that perhaps indicative that there is not a strong consensus for this means of getting the tools? DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He decided to use a new name. What's wrong with that? A rename would have been better, but he's being open about who he was so what's the deal? Majorly talk 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just have a VP (Policy) discussion about this and decide on some standards so every discussion doesn't become a meta-debate about it? Peachey88 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Juliancolton is correct, I scrambled my password on the old account and blanked my email address. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that your last edit as Ta bu shi da yu was this one, which indicates that you were blocked for 1 hour shortly before you decided to retire. At first glance, I would say that that does look controversial to me. I had not known about this before now, though, and haven't seen any of your 3000-odd edits as Tbsdy lives, or seen whether this has been discussed before. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I object to Nat having blocked me, IMO I was not vote stacking. I'd actually totally forgotten about this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know why he feels an RfAd is not necessary this time, when he submitted to one (or two) after the last time he retired and then change his mind later. DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also just like to check that I've read the block log and the history of his userpage correctly, blocked at 03.20 on the 16th for vote-stacking, retired by email to another editor announced at 03.44. Is that right? DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you read the block log correctly. It will be examined in further detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall I posted to a few talk pages about Trivia Misplaced Pages:Facebook discussion. Didn't vote stack, object to that even being in the block history. Don't recall that Nat said anything to me before hand, he said that he was but he said that he was "getting my attention" by blocking me. I was also accused of making a sock-puppet account earlier on, incidentally (had to look up my old archives!), but I created an account that was only to prevent the use of an inappropriate signature. And I informed everyone I did it. You can see discussion here. It's a pity that a few people undertook the actions they did, given my contributions to the project up to this point. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I also got the feeling (from a brief glance at the edit history) that the CANVASS argument was marginally tenuous (in my opinion) as TBSDY was addressing users on that particular "facebook" page to let them know the page was subject to a deletion discussion. But that is just my opinion. And it was 2.5 years ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict... I was about strike that out and note that. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Retiring while blocked is not retiring in uncontroversial circumstances. There were also previous incidents of vandalism which derailed the first RfAd after his first "retirement". I think that this request merits consideration by the community. DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you might think that, but while I was frustrated by a number of things on Misplaced Pages, I was mostly burnt out. I never "retired while blocked", but certainly that might have increased my overall personal stress. If you wish to think this, then that's fine but I don't think that's a correct understanding of the situation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

From the block log and the history of your old userpage, the announcement of your retirement was made by another editor at your request while the block was in effect (or that is how it looks to me. I did ask above if I had read it correctly). DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My memory must be failing me. That's not what I recall, but yes that does indeed look to be the case. Also, the other thing that derailed my adminship was discussed to death, and if you look at the second adminship you'll notice that was all resolved there. I'm not really sure why you are bringing this up again. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If people are concerned about the last block or anything else, then I am willing to withdraw. Which I personally think would be a pity, because this was really just a request to transfer my existing adminship to my new account. Nobody had indicated to me previously that they wanted me to be desysopped :( - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 01:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The general definition I have seen used over the years, is that a user may regain adminship that they voluntarily resigned so long as the resignation was not under a cloud. The definition of the term "under a cloud" has been taken to mean if a person resigned in order to avoid some process that has the reasonable possibility of resulting in a desysopping (RFAR, RFC, etc). It is the standard practice that a block or general inactivity, in and of itself, is not grounds for removal of userrights (see generally 1, 2 (excepting IPBE, ACC, BOT, CU, and OV per specific policies)). I have also heard it described that "not under a cloud" should not be taken to mean "in harmony with the universe," but rather "did so to avoid possible desysopping." At the moment I am reviewing the links Duncan has provided above and also waiting the 24 hours recommended by prior crat discussions in actioning this request. MBisanz 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I didn't retire to avoid any adminship discussion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to deny TBSDY his adminship. He retired in good standing and returns in good standing. The change of account name is immaterial - there is no secret about his being the same user, and no reason to insist that adminship be associated with a user account rather than a user. And perhaps it would not be irrelevant to mention that TBSDY was one of our finest administrators before his retirement. I favor returning his adminship without further delay. — Dan | talk 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Retiring "under a cloud" is, in general, taken to mean resigning the bits when there is danger of their being removed forcibly. Being blocked for a short amount of time does not lead to being desysopped. We have plenty of admins who have been blocked. If the only issue is a short block, I would not view that as "under a cloud". An indef would be a different matter. -- Avi (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, as someone who's researched this specific matter in the past, I see no issue with reassigning the rights. –Juliancolton |  05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also I should note that if Tdsdy is resysopped, he could agree to have his usernames swapped, so that the account he continues to edit with is named Ta bu shi da yu (or anything for that matter), but the point being that the rename log (as well as the userrights log) can be used to ensure identification to others. MBisanz 09:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—if Tdsdy hadn't scrambled the password, the admin rights would still be intact, block or no block. This is clearly not "under a cloud". Resysop. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

What evidence is there that Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and user Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person? WJBscribe (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They talk the same way. Bishonen | talk 12:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Now that's funny! hydnjo (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And he's edited under the new account for two years without being caught as an impersonator. –Juliancolton |  15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting he's an impersonator, just questioning whether enough has been done to establish identity. I'm sure we have many much older undiscovered socks, so "undiscovered for two years" doesn't amount to establishing identity. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit contradictory. If noone is suggesting I'm an impersonator, then it sounds like everyone agrees about my identity. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all contradictory. Not thinking someone is an imposter is not the same as that person establishing their identity satisfactorily. It's like the difference between saying "I don't think you ate my pasty" and "I know it wasn't you who ate my pasty". DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As an idea, a user named "Ta bu shi da yu" uploaded a file to commons within the past three months, so the CU log should not be scraped for a commons CU to check and compare with logs here. This is why GPG keys and confirmed identities are a good idea. -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If he still has control of the other SUL accounts under the old name, can't he regain access to the original account here through them? DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• My evidence is that User:Ta bu shi da yu uploaded File:Everyone at the London Meetup Jan 2nd 2006.JPG which had an individual in the picture that matches the person in File:Ouch Emily.JPG. Also, it matches the caption for File:Sydney Meetup 2007-04-25 Restaurant (4).jpg, which indicates the person in the picture is the same person. Lastly, the original User:Ta bu shi da yu was outed on Misplaced Pages-Watch's Hivemind at some point and I facebook friended the person listed in that entry some time ago, who also appears to be the same as the person in all the images. Now, it also appears that TBSDY has met at least several other editors who can probably confirm his identity, I've never met him or interacted with him at length, so I can't say that, but it appears that Werdna, Jimbo, Thebainer, and other trusted Australians probably could. The reason he can't use SUL is that it appears he did not link the accounts before hashing the password, so even if he could access another wiki, the account on enwiki would appear to belong to someone else for reason of having a different password. MBisanz 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tim Starling or Angela could confirm my identity. Also, not sure if this helps, but I just made the following change to my commons user page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did not resign

I place store in Treasury Tag's comment above. It's merely a sideshow that the returning user cannot simply pick up his adminship where he left off because he scrambled his account. The fact is that he did not resign his adminship. As such, our pontifications about whether or not he left under a cloud are irrelevant, although interesting. In my opinion, we have no grounds in policy or existing consensus for Crat actions for withholding the request, as he did not resign, whether under a cloud or not. --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the only issue is confirmation that the two accounts are being run by the same person, and I think that there is enough evidence for that (MBisanz, the commons changes). Does anyone else have any specific issues? Will, are you satisfied? -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. WJBscribe (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Avi's re-flagging. MBisanz 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Given the information presented here, I concur with Avi's reflagging. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I concur as well. Glad to have you back, Ta bu. — Dan | talk 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks folks :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community.

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested

A recently resigned admin, subject of a current RfArb, has stated that he is not prevented from regaining tools via this process. At least 2 current Arbs have said that he is so prevented. This diff is relevant. Would bureaucrats be so good as to issue clarification of their understanding of policy and consensus in such a case? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when you say "this process" do you mean Crats regranting tools without need for RfA? --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm recused both as a crat and an arb clerk in the specific matter in question, but I can state that based on past practice, crats usually do not determine the process required for a user to regain the tools until such time as a user presents the question (like U.S. courts require an actual case or controversy to make a ruling). Arbcom has in the past though specified the process for a user to regain the bit in advance of their requesting it and sometimes the user themselves declares one of the normal means shall be unavailable to them (they claim they will not seek crat re-bitting or arbcom re-granting in favor of an RFA). MBisanz 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Not a bureaucrat, but) I would say that any unbanned former administrator is free to submit an RfA or request resyssoping here unless explicitly forbidden from doing so by an ArbCom motion, remedy or enforcement ruling or a community sanction. In this case, I image that if the MZMcBride 2 case is not opened, the Committee will pass a motion establishing the circumstances under which the editor in question can seek to become an administrator again.  Skomorokh  19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have there been any previous cases where Arbs individually (that is, not in a motion or formal case) stated that a resigned admin would have to use RfAd rather than cratadmining, and the former arb applied here? And if so, what happenned? DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can't think of any off-hand, possibly something involving Majorly or Secret, maybe Essjay or Mercury, but again that is just my speculation of situations that were complex enough that it could have occurred there. MBisanz 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I should very much prefer to see the Arbitration Committee take the case and then decide whether MZMcBride ought to be (or have been) desysopped. His having resigned the bit does not resolve the matter, as several arbitrators believe, precisely because the question remains whether he will have to apply at RFA if he wants to regain his adminship. If the case does not proceed, we will have a very hard time deciding whether the circumstances of his resignation require him to pass another RFA. MZMcBride indicated to me yesterday that he did not think his adminship was at risk in the arbitration case; the arbitrators' remarks suggesting that it was seem all to have been made after his resignation and in reaction to it. I suppose it could be argued that MZM should have known that his adminship would be at risk in a case like this, but I don't know how this question could be decided in a principled way.

In sum, unless the arbitration committee takes the case, the matter remains in a muddle. The only complete solution I can see is for the case to proceed: the least MZM deserves is an official and unequivocal decision from the arbitration committee (not one or two of its members individually) as to whether he should be desysopped or not. If they cannot be bothered to give him this, we (the bureaucrats) will be stuck having to clean up the mess sooner or later, and we do indeed seem to be without precedent to help us along. — Dan | talk 21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am assuming that our vague rule that a resigning adminstrator may request the bit back without another RFA only if he/she did not resign "under a cloud" is to be phrased more precisely as follows: "under circumstances in which his/her adminship is either explicitly at risk or is the subject of substantial controversy." Still we're left with some imprecisions - how much and what sort of controversy is "substantial"? - but it's better than the purely metaphorical "under a cloud." — Dan | talk 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, they do help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The pertinent question is would you resysop without an RfA under these circumstances? Points about the vagueness of the practice and the circumstances are well taken, but should we understand your comments to mean that, as a result, you would resysop if MZMcBride asked it of you? Nathan 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The point of my comments was that I would rather avoid having to make that decision, since I'm not entirely sure how I would go about it. It would probably involve:

1. Reading the request for arbitration and all associated comments very closely, to see if and by whom MZM's adminship was considered at risk before he resigned.
2. Looking at similar closed cases to get a sense of whether, in a case like this, it might reasonably have been expected that MZM would be desysopped, or at least that his desysopping would have been proposed and debated by arbitrators.

I hope you won't mind if I don't put myself to all of this trouble to answer a hypothetical question, and I hope you can see why I would rather the arbitrators simply proceed with the case. :-) — Dan | talk 22:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have said nearly exactly the same thing. I would add that I would weigh the opinion of the two sitting arbs if it came to our purvue to make the decision, but that's already part of "all associated comments" above. - Taxman 23:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rebecca

Rebecca (talk · contribs · count) has requested, at Meta SRP, the reinstatement of her sysop tools on en.wikipedia. She previously held admin, oversight, and checkuser access and said rights were removed at her own request. Thanks. Kylu (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship