Misplaced Pages

Request to usurp an existing account on EnWiki

Hello... I received this request from an IP that identifies as Druth on the French Misplaced Pages. The user wants to inquire about claiming the name User:Druth on EnWiki. As the admin who blocked Druth on this project, it appears that the two are different individuals based on contributions. I have left a note on Druth's French talk page asking them to confirm the request there (to verify the account). Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Ckatz_spy 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Druth has since replied on their French talk page to verify the request. --Ckatz_spy 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

BAG closing

Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#BAG_Nomination:_Headbomb has been open just shy of two weeks now, which is nearly twice as long as is required by policy. Could a crat take a look and close? Thanks. MBisanz 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! MBisanz 02:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename discussion

I'd like some wider input on Misplaced Pages:CHUU#Plzmergethis_.E2.86.92_Steadfast. The requesting user is a de.wiki user who owns the SUL, while the en.wiki user is the only ununified account. However, the en.wiki user objects to rename. From my view, the de.wiki user has a right to the account as owning the global account, but we can't make the en.wiki user give it up. Any thoughts? MBisanz 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean from anyone? Did you mean here? The enwiki account is twice as old and has half as many edits as the dewiki account . The objection is reasonable. Sorry, that's too bad. Maybe the enwiki Steadfast can be asked to host a hatnote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bot help needed

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 6, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 7, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 8, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 9, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 10, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 11, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 12, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 14 have now been open starting since last October. No one on BAG wants to decide on the tasks because we're all either conflicted out (like myself) or unwilling to touch the operator/task with a ten-foot pole because of the highly political history/nature of the situation. Since BAG can't resolve these requests and they are otherwise clogging our docket, could some uninvolved 'crats please step in and help out here? Thanks. MBisanz 04:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that there's currently an ongoing discussion between BAG members on this. No need for 'crat involvement in the immediate future, but 'crats would be welcome to jump on IRC (#wikipedia-BAG) or might need to get involved in the next few days. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Would you care to point out to me where it is? or were you in fact referring to your own request for membership, where you already ruled out in principle support for most of the tasks that Lightmouse was ever likely to propose? --Ohconfucius 04:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• The discussion(s) were on IRC. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like this resolved too. Over many years, I've done a huge amount of good work converting units efficiently and contributing to debates. I've tried two angles:

• Apply bottom-up step-by-step for small changes. For example, we already have 'feet+miles' running very efficiently now and I've applied to include inches. The advantage of this is that the doubters can see that semi-automated conversion of units isn't so bad. The disadvantage is that it takes lots of applications to get any decent scope.
• Apply top-down for entire categories e.g. 'units of temperature'. The advantage is that the scope is sufficient. The disadvantage is that people want to have long debates about theoretical possibilities.

If it's ok to convert feet and miles, then it's ok to do other units. I'm not the enemy. There are lots of options:

• • have a 50 edit trial, then a whole series of them.
  • Have a 100 per-day or 50 per-hour limit on the edits.
  • Have a 10 day limit on the edits.
  • Have a restriction to manual (i.e. press the 'save' button each time) mode for Lightbot.
  • Have a restriction to a non-bot account i.e. Lightmouse
  • Have a mentor
  • Any combination of the above

Lightbot1 to Lightbot3 ran over the entire scope of 'units of measure'. It was hugely successful and it's code has been copied widely by other editors. There are frequently repeated assertions that I'm a bad person and it baffles me how they can conclude that from my work with units. The date linking saga has had lots of consequences including collateral damage to the good work by Lightbot doing units. That's all behind us now. I'm running a bot now for feet and miles. If two units can be converted, then so can other units. Simples. I'd be happy to drop or merge applications if they were being processed. Lightmouse (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Temp sysop for testing

I'd like someone to temporarily +sysop an alternate account of mine User:Prodebot, so that I can have it block itself identically to the way I blocked myself , and see if it is able to unblock itself. I was unable to unblock myself when I was blocked (unless I did something wrong), but unblockself is a userright admins are listed as having. I repeated the scenario on testwiki and it worked as expected there. I'd rather do it without blocking myself again. Thank you, Prodego 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See bugzilla:28352. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha, that explains everything. Thanks, saves me some testing! Prodego 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

The RFC Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles has run for over 30 days and due to the size, importance and strong feelings on both sides of the debate any closure/summarization is going to be difficult and controversial. It was therefore suggest to ask a bureaucrat to close it, for "capable judges of consensus" is part of your job description. A notice has already been posted at wp:AN, but they are typically slow to respond to calls of closure. Would one of you be willing to take the job? Yoenit (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Account deletion

For personal reasons, I want to exercise my right to vanish and to close my account for good (Bozgo (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

Requesting early close on RFA

The percentage at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 has been pretty stable for the past few days, so I wouldn't mind an early close, so that the question is resolved before the work week restarts. If you feel it would be valuable to let it run the full length, that's fine too. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I could switch my !vote if that would help juggle the numbers around if you'd like? j/k .. good luck no matter how it closes SoV. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a great idea. I'm sure there are many !voters, example moi, who wait to read all the oppose and support !votes before actually voting. Best to let things run their course to the end. --rgpk (comment) 20:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. While I personally think that RFA is not the place for such reconfirmation-requests, once initiated and discussed, it should run until the end. Otherwise, people will probably feel that their time has been wasted with this RFA. Regards SoWhy 20:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. To be frank, I am astonished by this request by Sarek. Once initiated, the process should run its course. Jusdafax 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)