Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 10 February 2012

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 18:41:22 on December 25, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Rename un-vanished editor

User:Rlevse "vanished" in 2010 and his account was renamed User:Vanished 6551232. He has since returned as user:PumpkinSky, and possibly one or more previous accounts. (I wrote to PumpkinSky using his Misplaced Pages email account and received a reply from Rlevse.) I believe it is standard to undo the renaming when editors return from an RTV.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually just block the renamed account. Maybe we've done some renames like this, but do we have any good examples to go by? MBisanz 00:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note, thought it's not directly relevant to the naming issue, that the user talk page was also deleted, which I do not believe is normally done.

As for the naming issue, WP:RTV says: If the user returns, the "vanishing" may be fully reversed; the old and new accounts will be linked; and any outstanding sanctions and similar will be resumed.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, ok, I've just scanned the last 5,000 renames and didn't see any under that rule. I'm going to keep looking. MBisanz 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to? Is there any doubt that the user has un-vanished?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I ended up finding one possible example and one definite example in the last 10,000 renames with Garydubh (talk · contribs) by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs). Given how infrequently this is done (there have only been 22,000 renames ever), I want more opinions on how to proceed. Also, the user in question has 97,000 edits, which is beyond the limit of the system to currently rename, so we would need to file the request via bugzilla and somehow convince a sysadmin it is worth their time to do from the server side. MBisanz 00:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant statistic would not be how many users have been renamed, but rather how many vanished users have returned and had their old usernames maintained as "Vanished", or have been renamed back to their original name.

How did the user get their name changed before if it already went over the limit?   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That first statistic will be almost impossible to find given the non-standard RTV renaming structure and the use of revdel on the logs, but I would wager the number of users involuntarily renamed back to their original name is under five. Also, the limit used to be 200,000 (possibly 2,000,000) until we realized the extension was so faulty it was constantly breaking accounts. It still frequently breaks accounts over 10,000. I remember crashing servers and freezing the wiki when the limit was at 200,000 instead of the current 50,000. MBisanz 00:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the edit limit. I remember having to abandon my old account because I had more than 10,000 edits (or whatever the exact limit was in 2005).

Aside from precedent, the guideline seems to call for undoing vanishing when an editor returns. Since this return has been controversial, it seems to be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually know if it's appropriate or not in this case, but given that it would be involuntary, I would have the knee-jerk concerns of privacy and attribution. Whatever the guideline says, I believe the precedent is simply to hardblock the renamed user and forget about them. MBisanz 00:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In lieu of renaming, which I now understand is technically difficult, I'll post a note on the user page that he has returned, and start a DRV to undelete the user talk page. Those will substantially undo the vanishing, per the guideline.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. You could also just ask AGK or Avi to undue their deletion. MBisanz 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But it looks like user:Tristessa de St Ange was the deleting admin. However she has not been active since November. She said there were privacy issues and to contact her before restoring the page, so I've written to her.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are only 5 edits on the talk page of "Vanished". User talk:Rlevse still exists and the history has not been deleted. Some variant of {{Former account}} should be sufficient in lieu of a re-rename, I would think. -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! I hand't noticed that the Rlevse talk page still existed under that name. I was wondering why there were only five edits to the "vanished" account. The template:Former account doesn't seem to have the right wording. I left a simple message to the same effect and will also post one on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of former crat's actions

Since it involves the actions of a (former) bureaucrat, this thread may be of interest to current bureaucrats. WP:AN#Rlevse's actions as bureaucrat.   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; opinion noted at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee#Under controversial circumstances. -- Avi (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much response there from bureaucrats. While the question of whether JoJo actually made the !votes or not, is there any consensus on the issue of closing an RFA in which a spouse, presumably using the same computer and IP, has already !voted?   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I commented there. -- Pakaran 03:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed practice for desysopping

I propose that when an admin or crat requests desysopping and states they are "invoking RTV," "requesting a courtesy vanishing," "vanishing," or otherwise making a direct allusion to WP:RTV, the reviewing crat would specifically inform them that by doing so, they could never reclaim the bit without re-seeking RFA and require the user to confirm they are aware that what they are requesting is permanent and different from retirement, leaving, or taking a break. Thoughts? MBisanz 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Seems entirely consistent with the philosophy behind RTV. Manning (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - In line with my understanding of RtV, as stated at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee#Under controversial circumstances and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Alternate alternate proposal: RTV users are blocked, that it is a complete disassociation from the project. -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support for all future requests, since the RtV policy has listed at least since this 2008 edit that courtesy vanishing is not intended to be temporary, and much more recently Avi made a compelling case that vanishing is a permanent decision to leave the community. Before we begin strictly enforcing that, we should make sure that users who ask to vanish know that what they're seeking is not intended to be, and will not be regarded as, temporary; for a very long time, WP:RESYSOP, for example, has said nothing about vanishing as a bar. A strong case can be made that one needs to sign a waiver of liability to ski, one should have to do something much more deliberate and informed than writing "vanishing, desysop plz?" on BN to put oneself in the situation of being unable to return to maintenance work without a full week-long RfA. (Note that on a technical basis, we can't remove the bureaucrat flag locally, so it's possible that a crat who isn't monitoring this discussion could request retirement on meta, even mentioning vanishing, and not be notified here in any manner we agree to carry out.) I guess another big question is how we will handle anyone who requests reflagging after asking to "vanish" but not explicitly confirming that this is a permanent choice. In those cases, I would lean towards allowing them the flags back, if there are not other reasons for controversial circumstances, but it should be discussed when it arises. -- Pakaran 00:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I think this should be added to the RTV page, and it should apply to any special access, tool set, or elected or appointed position: administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, arbitration committee, etc. As others have stated, it's vanishing, and if you want to vanish you are giving up anything attached to your former account. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the return of tools should be considered on an individual basis and don't think we should fetter that discretion. There shouldn't be blanket ban on users asking to vanish later reclaiming their identiy and associated user rights. WJBscribe (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose RTV is in the limelight with Fae/Rlvese accounts/issues; but I think this goes against long standing precedent and would need more than just a straw poll here at WP:BN to enact. This is a drastic change to existing policy/practice. When people leave/retire, they often do so thinking they won't be coming back. Now, when somebody comes back after having requested the right to vanish, it should cause pause amongst the 'crats... did the person who left do so under a cloud? Did they RTV when they saw a cloud forming? If so, then I think it is safe to assume they retired rather than face the cloud and thus "under a cloud." But a solid user who simply wanted to get away and invoked the right to vanish. Nah. Unless this is taken to the wider community, I can't support making that change here.---Balloonman 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  This addresses both Balloonman and Will. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I make a distinction between "retiring" and "courtesy vanishing". As I have made clear, I hope, in other places, if someone retires from Misplaced Pages and then wishes to return, we do so with open arms. Furthermore, unless the retirement can be viewed as being done to escape scrutiny or sanction, we have no reason to believe that the returning retiree has lost the trust of thye community and the bits are restored with no fuss. Exercising a vanishing is different; it is a request to be completely disassociated with the project, it encompasses a rename—often without redirects, it is more likely to have talk page deletions (not commonly, but more likely than other times), and we go out of our way to separate the former user id from person behind that account. In that case, rights should be removed permanently as well; that editor no longer exists for Misplaced Pages purposes. I think some of the problem is that people are conflating retirement with vanishing, and I think that there needs to be a clear difference made between them. -- Avi (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree, if I decided that I wanted to disappear as Balloonman tomorrow and started editing under the claim of clean start the name "I'm Spartacus". And a year or two down the road, I wanted to get my bit back. THEN I think it would be appropriate for me to undergo an RfA. I've been editing as a user for two years and my actions should be judged accordingly.

  If I decide that I'm simply fed up with the beaucracy and decide to retire. And in my retiring I decide to vanish. A retiring user may wish to vanish out of concern about his/her name being linked back to them in real life and wants to avoid that potentiality. A year or two down the road I decide to come back. In that situation, I should be treated as any other returning user.---Balloonman 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  The problem with your second point, Balloonman, is that there is no link between the old and new accounts, since vanishing occurred. The community has a right to know where it showed that so-and-so was trusted. If the returning user cannot point to an RfA due to vanishing, that means they cannot have the bit back. If you now allow vanishing to be "reversible" as your second point makes, that removes any gravity from the process. The way we have considered vanishing in Misplaced Pages until this point, is that it is a last resort, a way to completely divorce onesself from the project, and it should be treated with the seriousness it demands. That includes ramifications; if your account no longer exists on wikipedia, neither do the bits associated with it. If you have any intention of returning, don't vanish—retire instead. -- Avi (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  If a vanished user comes back and wants the bit back, no big deal. I'm sorry, but I don't see it as being a major issue to reappear. There are reasons a person might vanish and then later reconsider an reappear. Legit concerns about linking their wikipedia account to real life and then realizing it's not necessary. The question is why did they vanish in the first place? Was it because they were under heavy scrutiny and thus fled before the cloud? Or was there an attempted divorce that failed and the user realizes that they want to be involved with WP again? Sorry, I just think the proposal is too "one size fits all".---Balloonman 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  To respond to your points, if there was fleeing due to potential scrutiny or sanctions, the bit is not returned regardless—even accepting that the return is a resuscitation of an existing account, not one which vanished. If there was an attempted divorce, then vanishing isn't necessary—simply retire. Vanishing means "please sever all ties I have with this project", "I can no longer edit here; please cancel my account, kill it with fire, and spread the ashes over the internet so that there is as little way as possible for people to link my real life id with my Misplaced Pages account." That is one step beyond. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Again, this solution is to simplistic. Hypothetical scenario: User:X is an admin in good standing. Straight laced moral character with the highest degree of integrity. He gets drawn into editing articles on pornography and child abuse, not because those are subjects of interest, but rather because they need somebody to monitor to ensure the highest quality on Misplaced Pages. User:X decides to retire, but he's a little concerned that the edits to those subjects might come back to haunt him down the road. Perhaps he's looking for a job or just met Mrs Right. So, out of fear that his editing this controversial subjects might come back to bite him, he decides to vanish. He has no intention of returning. Fast forward 6 months, he's got a job and is now married, but misses his involvement in Misplaced Pages. He regrets his decision to leave and wants to come back. Are we going to demand an RfA from him? Great editor who made a mistake in choosing to vanish rather than retire---but made that choice based upon real life concerns rather than anything related to wikipedia? Would he want to run knowing that since he edited those two controversial areas people are going to label him and oppose simply because he worked in a controversial section which needs good editors?---Balloonman 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think I may have addressed that in my suggestion on the VPp; I think that if someone regrets the vanishing, and is willing to be renamed back to the original name (or at least make a very clear linkage between them), they can petition ArbCom to get "reinstated" as it were. The two main issues I see here is 1) Vanishing is more than retiring, and needs to be treated as such 2) The project members have a right to know who has privileges and why. So in this case, the latter could be addressed by making an open linkage. I'd prefer to see the former addressed by not making it automatic. If he is unwilling to link to the old account, we now create a situation where someone would have the bits and no reason or backing for them. That goes against every understanding I have of what this project wants. -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment an interesting proposal and I see merit in both sides of the discussion. It worries me that this page isn't very high profile and the discussion could do with some marketing. WP:CENT anyone? --Dweller (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that there are those focused only on RTV which happens after an editor has edited in a way which the community has frowned upon. I think RTV is a broader idea and includes quite a bit more, including retirement. It seems to me that it is any "leaving" of editing of a Misplaced Pages account. - jc37 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, Jc37, the above understanding is not how the project guidelines view RtV on English WIkipedia. Please read WP:RTV, where the differentiation between Misplaced Pages:Retiring and vanishing is made clear. If you wish to have them combined, you would need to show community consensus for merging the two processes. -- Avi (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  I realise that some well-meaning editors have narrowed the definition here. But I would be surprised if that narrowing was not just several WP:BOLD edits rather than a widespread consensus. And just because we as a community tend to script rules, policies, and guidelines based upon negative action, and often leave the positive uses to atrophy (or at least left unsaid/unscripted), doesn't mean that the positive uses shouldn't exist or shouldn't be allowable. But regardless, as in any discussion on Misplaced Pages, I'm merely expressing my thoughts and perspective : )

  As a semi-related aside, please see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#RTV_vs._Clean_slate - jc37 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sure enough. It would appear that the "what RTV is not" section was a BOLD addition in a "reworking" of the page. . (Here's what the talk page looked like at the time of the change .) Nothing wrong with being BOLD (I strongly support BRD). But I think we're hard pressed to call this interpretation a "greater consensus" of the English Misplaced Pages community. All it does it cause WP:IAR to be invoked when necessary. Wouldn't it be better of the page accounted for the IAR situations if possible? I would think so. - jc37 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, I think it was less of a BOLD change, and more of a bringing the page in line to how bureaucrats had been acting for pretty much years. I doubt anyone other than bureaucrats gave this much thought since this is something that we are tasked to do. -- Avi (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  "'...more of a bring the page into line with how bureaucrats had been acting for pretty much years" Really? I'm not sure that's the case and I was probably the most active bureaucrat at the time. Besides, bureaucrats are expected to act in a way that reflects consensus - our actions do not define it. I'm not aware that anyone has had the return of user rights refused because they had exercised their RTV. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new idea. Absent a strong consensus that bureaucrats should not have a discretion as to whether to return rights to those who have exercised their RTV, I am prepared to restore rights to such a user provided they did not resign their tools under a cloud / in controversial circumstances. WJBscribe (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Didn't that happen to Secret/Jaranda at one point? Part of the muddle of precedent here is separating RTV under tranquil circumstances from those which attracted more controversy. Nathan 22:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Will, This has pretty much been my understanding even prior to my being a bureaucrat. As we are two different people, it is understandable that we have two different interpretations of WP:RTV, which is why having this discussion is a good thing. Being that much is currently left to 'crat discretion, I can easily see a case where I would not return a bit and you would. If that is an untenable situation, we probably need an RfC to determine how the project views RtV vs. retirement etc. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  In regards to your aside, I think that ASCIIn2Bme and The Hand have addressed the issue. One can cleanstart now with no fuss. Abandon the account and start a new one. It may be advisable to let ArbCom or the functionaries know early on, so that they recognize it isn't a sockpuppet but a new account. However, if someone has suspicions of connection to the abandoned account early on, the start, in hindsight, wasn't so clean, was it ? A step beyond abandonment is taken when vanishing is asked for; pages may be deleted, log entries may (not always, not even often, but may) be deleted, that is more severe. My opinion is that an editor needs to think long and hard before trying to officially obfuscate and destroy links to their work in the project, and their needs to be consequences to requesting such a severe severance. -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship